As the curtains close on the 13th week of the United Food and
Commercial Workers union strike on several major grocery stores,
some question whether anything positive can result from continuing
the seemingly endless strike.
The union may lose its leverage to negotiate as the strike moves
out of the public eye and as temporary workers become more
experienced. Without these crucial elements, the union would be
less likely to win increased health care benefits.
The strike began on Oct. 13, 2003 in response to lowered health
care benefits for employees. A date for further negotiation has not
been determined.
Locked-out employees also became ineligible for medical benefits
beginning Jan. 1. Because striking workers have worked so few
hours, many must pay to receive medical benefits and insurance
through March. Supermarket chains have not completely contributed
to funds that would have provided such coverage.
The union began its strike in hopes that corporate sales would
plummet due to union worker absence, forcing store management to
agree to the union’s terms.
Though sales have greatly plummeted in the third quarter of the
fiscal year, the longer the strike persists, the less likely it is
that workers will receive all the benefits for which they are
striking.
Over time, the public also tends to support a strike less, and
sales may become less strongly affected.
Some UCLA professors say lessening public support and decreasing
corporate revenue indicate that the strike should end.
“This is too broad a strike because they are striking
against the whole industry, not just one or two markets,”
said economics Professor Earl Thompson.
“The supermarkets are out to crush their union, and they
will almost certainly succeed,” he added.
But others suggest that there might be more cooperation than
expected.
“No one is privy to what is really going on,” said
another UCLA economics professor, William Zame. “They may not
be talking officially, but that doesn’t mean they
aren’t talking unofficially or that decisions aren’t
changing.”
“My impression is that it is frequently the case with
strikes that it appears very little is happening right up until the
dispute is settled,” he added.
Some community residents believe the costs of the strike are not
worthwhile.
Strikes eventually become expensive and are not worth the cost
to either side, said Westwood resident and UCLA alumnus David
Weiss.
Some shoppers still support union workers by purposefully
avoiding stores impacted by the strike.
Zame and his spouse, who normally shop at Ralphs, currently
frequent grocery stores that are not affected by the strike out of
respect for picketers.
Though the strike may have less negative impact on the grocery
stores in the future, the strike of the past three months has
severely lowered store earnings and share prices.
Albertsons recently reported a sales decrease of as much as 51
percent this financial quarter. Its stock has dropped as much as 47
percent over the last three months.
The company was on track to meet estimates before the strike,
but lost ground on expenses this quarter, said Albertsons CEO Larry
Johnston in a press release.
The strike ““ which has resulted in increased employee
promotions, lost sales and decreased prices ““ largely
contributed to the loss, he added.
The grocery strike has only affected a third of the 2003 third
fiscal quarter, which ended Dec. 5.
Kroger, the corporate parent of Ralphs, also announced that its
quarterly earnings were down by 57 percent. Stock have dropped as
much as 47 percent per share.
Exact financial figures from Safeway, the Vons parent company,
are not available until next month, but the company did indicate in
a press release that its quarterly earnings will not meet
analysts’ expectations.
According to the union, Vons sales figures may drop as much as
70 percent because the strike has affected 17 percent of Vons
locations, compared to only 11.2 percent of Albertsons
locations.