Reardon wrote on Jun 16, 2007 8:49 PM:I favor grocery workers sharing the grocers profits by buying stock in the company that puts food on their table. The company owes you a salary if you work, but not part of their profits because you invested and risked -- nothing. You may do so tomorrow, if you wish.

TonyJ wrote on Jun 17, 2007 1:33 AM:The greed of these companies is amazing to me. While gas, rent, and Food is going up in price, wages are going down. It's sad

TonyJ wrote on Jun 17, 2007 10:33 AM:The greed of these companies is amazing to me. While gas, rent, and Food is going up in price, wages are going down. It's sad

Reardon wrote on Jun 17, 2007 10:49 AM:To Tony J: If the wages get so low as to cause pain, the grocery workers have the absoluter right to quit and take their skills(sic) to someone who will pay them more. I have seen signs all over the area saying, "Help Wanted" and I have never seen anyone forced to take a grocery job at the point of a gun. I am sorry, but bagging apples, or stocking shelves, is not a career -- it is a low-skill job getting higher-than-earned wages.

TonyJ wrote on Jun 17, 2007 1:08 PM:Reardon, Now thats the American way. Tell the people who live in your community to drop dead, while the corperations make billions. I know someone like you would never think of wanting a raise form your job. Matter of fact, maybe you can suggest to your boss a reduction in your pay just to keep your job.

Anti-Union wrote on Jun 17, 2007 8:35 PM:The corporations make billions of dollars that go to pay for the shareholders as well as investing in future growth and ventures. That is the American way. Another part of the American way is the choice to do or not to do. Such as work. Why is it that there are many states where you must join the union. How wrong is that. I would rather take the risk of negotiating my own wages rather than pay union dues to those crooks who use them in ways I don't support. With congress controlling minimum wages these days, the unions are no longer needed. It's pro-union thugs like TonyJ who really distort what the unions are all about. It is not about the workers. It is all about increasing the union coffers to make people like Mickey Kasparian even richer on the backs of union due paying members. If the unions are so pro-worker, why don't they eliminate or reduce the dues of the workers in half so that they can put that money back in providing for their families.

Reardon wrote on Jun 17, 2007 8:48 PM:Sorry, TonyJ, I am my own Boss, and talking to myself could be an indication of insanity. I did not tell the grocery workers to drop dead, I told them to get a CAREER. The hardest job, and the best, is to be self-employed. Don't expect high wages for a drone job that can be filled by any high school dropout. A grocery job should be a starter job for high-school juniors, and not a career for adults, or at least a career for adults who want to make money. Grocery workers work in nice pleasant surroundings, doing easy work. People who make money work at jobs that require high skill, or high schooling. It is possible to make money at grunt work but you must work at something that people do not want to do, like embalming bodies or cleaning septic systems. You can't make money with low skill jobs that people like to do, such as working in a flower shop, or a bank, or a grocery store. Don't expect the world to change its policies to meet your wishes.

anti-corporation wrote on Jun 18, 2007 9:46 AM:first of all, Reardon, who are you to judge what is or is not a career, just because it is not as glamorous or inline with your chosen field? If the grocery industry was meant to be manned by high school dropouts and the like, who would supervise them? Who would ensure that local, state, and federal labor and safety policies were being met and enforced? Who would be held responsible? It would NOT be the 'starter high school juniors' for not only logical but legal reasons Being self employed, I'd imagine you don't have to deal with Department of Labor or OSHA regulations. You probably also dont have to deal with employees. So in your own little world, I can totally see why youd say it's a 'starter job' that entails 'easy work' Unfortunately this is the same mentality the grocery chains are taking. The grocery industry used to be a career, one that paid well for a hard days work, and where that work was rewarded on merits of knowledge and experience. But that corporate mentality that youve so graciosly shown here is taking that away from all of us.

TonyJ wrote on Jun 18, 2007 9:59 AM:Reardon, Listen to yourself. So if someone doesn't have a Master Degree they shouldn't be able to earn a decent living, with decent benefits. Maybe they could go on welfare and drain the taxpayers. By the way, easy work? Have you ever worked in retail? I did for 7 years and its anything but easy work. And by the way, with all the e-coli scares and other problems with food safety in our country, the last thing I want is a high school junior preparing my food.

anti-corporation wrote on Jun 18, 2007 10:02 AM:Reardon wrote on Jun 16, 2007 8:49 PM: " I favor grocery workers sharing the grocers profits by buying stock in the company that puts food on their table. The company owes you a salary if you work, but not part of their profits because you invested and risked -- nothing. You may do so tomorrow, if you wish. " how could a worker buy stock in a company when it's paying minimum wage? investing is not limited to monetary methods, workers invest time and effort into making sure the product is in stock and on hand, making said business presentable so the customer doesn't feel like they are shopping in a third world sweatshop,maikng sure anything and everything is fit for human consumption....unlike the grade A garbage you are spewing

Reardon Is Right wrote on Jun 18, 2007 12:13 PM:Being an employee of any company is NOT a profit sharing proposition. The only thing a business owes an employee at the end of the day is a paycheck. If you want to share in their profits then buy stock.

TO ANTI-CORP @ 10:02am wrote on Jun 18, 2007 12:14 PM:Performing one's assigned tasks during one's scheduled working hours is not 'investing' in the company. It's providing service for which you are compensated for.

Ask wrote on Jun 18, 2007 12:27 PM:Its really simple. If you dont like the company you're working for, then leave. If they company doesnt pay enough, then leave. If you're trying to get rich on a high school ed job, it may not be the place. Working for a company does not give you a right to the profits.

JamesL wrote on Jun 18, 2007 12:29 PM:No Reardon, an indication of insanity would be for you to say that grocery workers do easy work. You are right about one thing though when you said grocery work is not a career job. That's true; but it used to be. The grocery industry used to provide a steady, secure middle class life for hundreds of thousands of Americans who worked hard for every penny they recieved. For you to question the hard work and dedication of these workers is unbelievable and offensive. The next time you go to your local grocery store, ask the employees how hard they work. Better yet, take in a job as a clerk, or a bagger, or a butcher and see exactley how easy and carefree it might be.

Mary wrote on Jun 18, 2007 12:29 PM:Guys, I hate to remind you of this... But one of the reasons the morons in Congress are trying to pass this immigration bill and make the illegals "legal workers" is payoff to the unions who are pushing the immigration bill. The unions are just another form of corporation seeking money and power and using the workers for their own greed and benefit. So in the future, the unions are going to be very interested in getting the now illegals (soon to be Legal) to join the unions for more money and power to union leaders. I predict you will see more and more of the illegals (who become legal) work in the grocery stores as clerks, cashiers, etc. Grocery stores have a very small profit margin in the 1% to 2% range. So the majority of the profit goes right back into buying product, paying workers, store upkeep, etc. Also, "Net Profit" does NOT equate to cash. By the way, I looked up the net profit of those companies in their 10k's for 2006, and they have been greatly distorted in this article. A lot of you seem to hate corporations who apparently give us jobs, so I am wondering if any of you have ever gotten a job from a poor person?

siggy wrote on Jun 18, 2007 4:06 PM:Sorry Reardon but, the only reason any of us - including you work, is to earn a living, my 8 hrs away from my family and/or life 'producing' is as valuable as yours or any other "career". The price and sacrifice one invests for the 'paper education' going into a career is minute compared to physical investment and health costs of those who actually labour for a living. So please take your smug condescanding attitude somewhere else. I've worked retail for 20 yrs. I chose it as a "career". It provide a desent living and allowed me to raise my own family. While I (and many others) did that retailers didn't do so badly either. tell you what, without us and people like us not a single wheel would turn. Take that to the bank!

rick wrote on Jun 18, 2007 4:39 PM:I can not believe the readers who responded to this story. Do you people not see what is going on here? The destruction of the grocery industry as a middle class job, has nothing to do with the grocery industry. Everywhere you look in America this is happening. The large corporation are squeezing the life out of America. And you all just sit back and complain. Good luck to you all

To Siggy wrote on Jun 18, 2007 6:33 PM:It can be argued that without you, the retail worker, the business would be non-existent. However, you can just as easily flip that to point out that without the business you wouldn't have a job. It goes both ways.

groceryworker wrote on Jun 18, 2007 10:50 PM:We are friendly and helpful when you vist us after your long day at work. We work weekends and holidays so you can enjoy your free time. In the past 3 years, rent on a rent-controlled apartment has increasd $200/month; food prices and gas prices have increased-- BUT grocery wages have not. So, why shouldn't we get a raise after 3 years? Reardon, I'll call your boss and tell him you'll do more work for less pay!

Mark wrote on Jun 19, 2007 7:34 AM:Everyone, You've got to look at the bigger picture. What is happening here is the "Wal-Mart-ization" of the retail grocery industry. Wal-Mart's model shifts the burden of fair wages and decent health benefits from the backs of the company to the backs of the community! Wal-Mart's "benefits" are so low, that a HUGE percentage of their employees rely on public assistance. Wal-Mart makes bigger profits and your community shoulders a larger burden which forces them to either raise taxes or reduce services. Does your city have enough monies for schools, police, streets, parks or libraries? No.. and everytime we have a ballot in front of us there is another tax increase or bond issue we have to vote on because the cities and counties don't have enough money. Wal-Mart (the largest employer in America) grows fatter and our cities and counties grow poorer. And now, the supermarket industry wants to do the same thing.... shift the burden of fair wages and decent health benefits to the backs of the community. And it's not this contract negotiation that is starting that trend. It started at the last one. When the supermarket companies used whatever methods they could (including breaking the law... Ralphs plead guilty to multiple felonies) to shove a two-tier wage/benefit system down the throats of the supermarket workers. A new system that dramatically shifts the burden of wages and benefits to the backs of the taxpayers. I work in the supermarket industry. I'm a 33-year veteran. And I see it regularly.... Fellow employees that pay for their groceries with food stamps and have to rely on public clinics for their health care. They use the emergency room at the hospital as their "doctor's office" because it is free (they can't afford to pay and they can't be turned away). OUR TAX DOLLARS are paying for this. And, all the while, the supermarket profits soar. They succeeded in shifting "benefits" -that have tradionally been benefits provided by the employer- to the backs of the taxpayer. Well, this current contract negotation is all about trying to correct that. Trying to negotiate a decent contract that is fair to all concerned. Read the op-ed piece again. Stater Bros. and Gelson's negotiated such a contract (and they did it in just 5 days!). Are those companies going bankrupt? Of course not. Their profits are up too. Thanks in great part to the stable work foce that they enjoy. Yet, the huge mega-corp supermarkets say they can't afford a fair contract. Hogwash. Their only goal is to see how much more burden they can shift to the backs of the community. And, oh, by the way... remember 3 years ago when the supermarkets said that they needed to lower wages and benefits to "compete" with the coming Wal-Mart supercenters? Well, where are those evil Wal-Mart supercenters? Right.. none to be found. And has your supermarket lowered prices in the last three years (as they promised)? Of course not... they simply are making MORE profit. Billions of dollars! Yet, they can't afford literally one penny more per hour to improve the benefits for the second-tier employees. In fact, they want to pay LESS toward benefits than they've been paying the last 3 years. They want to continue to put more burden on YOUR back.

To groceryworker wrote on Jun 19, 2007 9:32 AM:I certainly empathize, but you're not entitled to a raise just because you think you should have one. Do you think your costs are the only one's that have increased? Grocery stores also have to buy food and pay for gas to have it delivered. Their rent can go up too. And their increases are on a much grander scale since they typically have many more than one location that is affected by the same or similar cost increases. If you think you've done enough to earn a raise then stand up for yourself and ask for one. You may get it or you may not. But forcing employers to provide higher wages to all employees regardless of merit is just plain wrong. I know it's tough work physically & mentally because dealing with the public sucks. But you picked it. If you don't like it then leave.

To Mark wrote on Jun 19, 2007 1:34 PM:Your data is not supportable. Take a look at real information that is available. Don't spout off nonsense that is heresay. Wal-Mart has provided jobs for people who want one and they have provided low cost items to those who shop there. It is all about personal choices. If workers really wanted to send a message to Wal Mart, they would just quit. The fact that they don't means that they are willing to work for what they receive. Look at all the forums that are anti-Wal Mart and you will see all the false information you are spouting are refuted by facts.

Reardon wrote on Jun 19, 2007 2:56 PM:I have worked retail -- then owned a retail business and worked the floor 6 days a week. My wife and I cleaned the business every Sunday. Been therr, done that. Served 26 years in the military, also, mostly in submarines, a job most retail workers would RUN from. Taught computer science for 14 years at a local university. Did a corporate stint also. With one-and-a-half Masters degrees, I have options. Lack of education is the limiting factor for most menial labor, but having made terrible decisions early in life does not make a corporation into a charity to pay for your mistakes. That said, I think bagging groceries serves a useful purpose: It serves as an object lesson. It certainly did for me. I was orphaned at age 5, and raised by my grandmother, who told me at the age of 12 that there was zero money even for junior college, so if I could not work my way into West Point or Annapolis, I would have to "bag groceries at Piggly-Wiggly." No thank you. I have no problem with those who choose to work at bagging groceries -- I know a college graduate who does it (because it is easy, and pays well) but that is a choice she makes. The job does not require either education or skill, just time. Time is something everyone has exactly the same amount of, daily, so there is nothing to recommend the job for either pay or benefits. Test my theory -- go get a high paying job somewhere else. If you can, you should, but most retail work can be done by an illiterate and in California we have more than enough of them. You may even be a college grad and elect to work low-end retail, but that does not qualify you for a higher wage. I'll cross your picket line, and smile.

The General wrote on Jun 19, 2007 4:14 PM:Shame On You reardon! You'd better not hope you cross the picket line I am on. You resume is impressive, if it is real? Anyone can make up a story for sympathy. I am sorry that you were orphaned young. That may explain some of your response. When I make a decision I look at all the facts and then when I have the power to help and support people and workers. That is real and worthwhile. At ease...

Unions are obsolete wrote on Jun 19, 2007 4:27 PM:Sorry, Mickey Kasparian, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 135. I worked for a very large, successful, non-union corporation for 30 years. We were paid fairly. And by fairly I mean on a merit pay system. Those of us who did our jobs well received the raises and promotions. Those who didn't and thought everyone should be paid the same complained and left for union jobs. The unions have in many cases destroyed individual incentives to move forward. The posters above who say employers do not have an obligation to share their profits are correct. By the way, grocery stores do operate on very low profit margins. Also, the companies take the risks. One risk union companies take is that their employees may go on strike at a time that will do the most damage to the very company that provides them with a job. If an employee wants to share in the company profit, they can buy stock in that company, then they too take a risk.

Reardon wrote on Jun 19, 2007 4:46 PM:The General shows why unions are in disrepute -- threats of physical force. Hardly the mark of an educated person, but representative of an organization that threatens and extorts, rather than relying on production followed by discussion. The resume is real (and only partial), and it is the result of NEVER demanding a pay raise, but rather increasing my benefit to those who employed me. (I have always worked for people with more money than I had.) Now I employ myself, take my own risks and enjoy my own rewards.

23 year Ralphs veteran wrote on Jun 19, 2007 5:07 PM:Reardon your not as smart as you think, have you gone back and looked at our past contracts and the promises that were made. These companies were built on the backs of us employees not the suits that sit in a cushy office and line their pockets with millions of dollars a year. You seem like a heartless person not so different than our so called president George Bush and his neocons. Im sorry you were orphaned, What would you do with me, 24 years old a house wife and pregnant, an unfortunate accident left my spouse severely disabled and unable to work.Yes I am only high school educated but that does not mean that I am stupid as you would suggest. I went out and found a job that would take care of my husband, myself and my child, and to dispute your thought that this is a easy cruise job, walk in my shoes for forty hours a week for 23 years. The middle class is the backbone of this country and its about time you and your overblown ego realize this. God Bless

Worker wrote on Jun 19, 2007 6:18 PM:To all commenting: you do realize that at Ralph's, Vons, and Albertsons in California, you don't have a choice. It is mandatory that you belong to the union to work at these companies, whether you believe in the union or not. A bit of a catch 22. Give us a break...if you have never worked at a job, don't assume you know how it is. Reardon, what you chose to do is fine, but name calling and thinking you are better than others is very immature. Next, you will be telling us that you are a Christian.

To Reardon @ 2:56PM wrote on Jun 19, 2007 6:50 PM:I agree wholeheartedly and will gladly join you in the crossing of the picket lines should they ultimately exist!!!!

To The General wrote on Jun 19, 2007 6:51 PM:If you truly want to support the people and workers then you would support the dissolution of the union to encourage individual thought and accomplishment.

The General wrote on Jun 19, 2007 7:50 PM:Great response "Worker!" In no way was I threatening in my message to Reardon. He is second guessing on all of the above. little does he know that I too have ascended the ranks with every organization I have been employed with, am beyond college educated and hold mutipple professional training licenses and I too have owned my own business and still do. I couldn't resist responding to such arrogance. Again get the facts before spouting off (or purging) and for the record I am a Christian (follower & discipple of Jesus Christ) and my last and final thought for the day is " WWJS?" Who would Jesus Support......Answer....Ordinary, plain, normal and yes the common working people. Look it up if you are still wondering...! 1Timothy 5:18 God Bless you "Worker" and pray for Reardon's heart to change. I will as well...May God Bless anyone for caring about people.

The General wrote on Jun 19, 2007 8:10 PM:1 Timothy 5:18 "For the scripture says' Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain, " and "The worker deserves his wages. One more thought for the day...History always repeats itself. Back in the day Greeks despised manual labor and viewed it as only fit for slaves (modern day workers, again look it up) Paul didn't and he even wrote about working to not be a burden to anyone (i.E. welfare, medi-Cal, etc.) See for yourself...1 Thes 2:9. If the Truth hurts anyone who has heard this know there is grace with it for the fact I will pray for your heart! Standing down now...Sirs!

Reardon wrote on Jun 19, 2007 8:34 PM:My debaters may wrap themselves in Christianity if they wish, but that does not negate the facts. 1) Everyone is worth what their skills will draw in the open market, without threats or extortion, 2) Let me quote the threat, "You'd better not hope you cross the picket line I am on." Perhaps The General will have an alternative reading for that sentence, and I can't imagine what picket line he would be on since he says he owns his own business. 3) People who select jobs that pay poorly, do not have big upside career paths, but have pleasant working conditions, do so at their economic peril. "Press Gangs" went out after the War of 1812. 4. Anyone who voluntarily stays in a low-skill job if they have high-skill resumes, has no one to blame but themselves. 5. My heart tells me that people should be paid commensurate to the benefit they provide for their employer. If the employer can get the same or greater production by paying someone else less money, it is incumbent on the employer to do so. It is a business, not a charity. (Go to work for the Salvation Army and see how little THEY pay! You want to see low pay? Try working for a church!) 6. There is no right to strike. There IS, however, a right to QUIT!

The General wrote on Jun 19, 2007 8:37 PM:Respect...definition: A particular detail, or point. relation or reference, admiration for or a sense of worth or excellence of a person. Repect is earned. Never forget this no matter which side of this issue you are on. Name calling or belittling anyone will never earn you respect. The other side of the coin is that you can also earn shame. Some earn this without even knowing it...now that is really a shame. Shop Union!

mikey d wrote on Jun 19, 2007 8:44 PM:It seems odd that those who know the least about a subject have the most to say. To the people who think grocery workers are overpaid and uneducated must not realize that they are responsible for handling your food. They must adhear with many federal,state and local laws, weights and measures, the health dept, the ABC board to name a few. They take their job responsiblities seriously and wish to be treated fairly and compensated accordingly and you should thank them every time you encounter them. They are the ones who turn your underage children away when they try to buy liquor and cigarettes to go to the party you don't know about. They are the people who bust their butts on the weekends and holidays you have off to enjoy your families. They are the ones who make sure the foods you eat are handled and weighed properly. They are the ones responsible for following through on any food recalls ( the Morans hamburger recall being the most recent) so you and your family don't get sick. The point is...THEY HANDLE YOUR FOOD... I would think you the consumer would demand the grocery companies to attract, train, compensate and retain the very best applicants for the job. They did for over 60 years under collective bargaing with unions and were very profitable in doing so. Now that is not the case.These companies chose to be union, and have prospered because of it. The companies are putting their stockholders and themselves first and you the consumer in a distant second. The grocery workers are hardly on the list anymore. In the end, the consumer loses when the years of experience of the grocery workers is diminished to the point of Walmart workers. Remember....THEY HANDLE YOU FOOD!!!!!

mikey d wrote on Jun 19, 2007 8:56 PM:To the folks who say the workers need to invest in stock of their own employing company...I did for over 20 years, When I was LOCKED OUT of my job and walked a picket line for 139 days to fight to keep what had been promised me from my company, I had to sell almost all of it off to survive. The wizards running the company had magically turned a $50/share stock into a $23/share stock and I lost a small fortune. The same wizard ( Read Albertsons CEO Larry Johnston) walked away with $120 million dollars for his wonderful stewardship because he had PREFERRED stocks, not common. The message is...the ave. worker can only hope to be fairly compensated through good wages and heathcare benifits negotiated over many years and contracts. Why is it that some people only see the "bad things" about unions when they have no real understanding of how unions work.

RobertM wrote on Jun 19, 2007 9:30 PM:Any worker's service is worth what someone is willing to pay. A worker's worth is dependent on how easy it is to replace him. If you can easily be replaced by someone who is willing to work for less money, don't be surprised if it happens. To make yourself more valuable, make yourself harder to replace. Learn to do something fewer people can do. That happens through individual effort, not belonging to a union.

The General wrote on Jun 19, 2007 10:11 PM:Reardon get your facts straight! 1.) There is nothing more valuable on earth than a human being 2.) Again....Shame on you is all I said. If that hurts to hear those words that is yours to deal with. 3.) Career paths are decided by the worker himself and himself alone...regardless or your opinions...you said this yourself 4.) Why does there have to be blame of oneself, is there another possibility...The love and gift of service. Not everyone has a servant's heart. 5.) The world is backward my friend and it is written, "The greatest among you will be your servant." Matt 23;11 6.) Their is the freedon of speech in the United States. It is First Amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. The Amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 7.) Education helps 8.) Love wins!

Reardon wrote on Jun 19, 2007 10:56 PM:Gosh, Mickey d -- that is a terrible story, and that "lock out" must have been the first time in history when a CEO awakened one morning, stretched, and said, "I think I'll shut down my profits by locking out all of my workers for no reason at all!" Now Normally, a "lock-out" is a reaction to a union threat to strike one part of an industry with a divide and conquer strategy, but your CEO must have been crazy as a loon and just decided, ad hoc, to close the doors and end business for awhile for no reason at all! I guess he wanted to really hurt his workers, his investors, his management, and his own pocketbook because he didn't like Mondays, or something. Sometimes a company may decide to lock out employees at a time convenient to the company when a union threatens to strike at a very sensitive sales time, but even that is rare and always in reaction to a union threat. I suppose that ad hoc scenario has happened, somewhere, sometime, without it being a reaction to a union threat...but I have never read about it. Please give us all a history lesson about the time a CEO just lost his mind without prior union provocation.!

The General wrote on Jun 20, 2007 6:39 AM:Can't refute those facts Reardon? That is because the truth cuts like a two edged sword. Your arguments are one sided and it is obvious to me that you haven't really walked long enough in the worker's shoes you are so quick to condemn...or maybe it has been too long ago for you to remember. Regardless, again you facts on lockouts are incorrect as they are not always "union provoked". Here's a question for you to ponder...In your line of business what if the customers, clients, vendors and neccesary organizations you needed to make a living came to you and made you a final offer of a 1/3 wage cut, Told you you benefits were going up 1000% and if they used your services that they would cap your maximum income that reduced the industry standard going rate by about 25%? Would you still be siding with corporate America then? Think before purging...at ease.

Reardon wrote on Jun 20, 2007 10:45 AM:General: I asked for a history lesson of the time when a CEO did a lockout that was not union provoked. I am still waiting for the company and the date -- and I will have a very long wait. I am also waiting for an explanation of the threat you previously posed, the "You'd better not hope you cross the picket line I am on" comment you say is not a threat. Now I will answer your question: Assuming the situation as you have posited it, I would seek a new line of work. Instantly. As you should. One thing I would never do is to threaten to ruin the business if my demands were not satisfied. If a non-employee threatens to ruin a business if they are not paid, it is called EXTORTION! If an employee makes EXACTLY the same threat, it is called a "Strike." That is a distinction in law without a difference on the street -- and as you so ably demonstrated in your remarks, backed up by threats of physical force in both cases.

Mark wrote on Jun 20, 2007 4:36 PM:General, how's this for an example: Circuit City recently (just a couple of months ago) fired 3,400 of its most-senior employees. At the same time, they publicly announced they would be hiring replacements at a lower rate of pay. This wasn't a simple layoff... It was an immoral act of replacing thousands of higher paid workers with lower paid workers. And it is a move that is already backfiring on Circuit City. I will never again shop at Circuit City and many others feel the same way. Their stock, which "rallied" to $19 per share with the firing announcement closed today at just over $16. Despite the firings (or, should I say because of them), sales and profits are down.

Reardon wrote on Jun 20, 2007 5:22 PM:Mark, if you propose that as an example of a lockout, you would have been smarter to not post at all. What you described is a permanent .layoff, or in government terms a RIF (Reduction in Force.) This does not constitute a lockout, which is described as temporarily layoff of part or all of a labor force, usually in retaliation to a union threat against the company or against a collective group of companies where not all companies are threatened. The lockout does what a strike does but in the opposite direction – it spreads the cost to the strikers, and spreads the remaining business sales profit among those stores that are struck. What is good for the Goose, etc. We will see how bright the union is tomorrow at noon. Usually, strikes occur at long intervals because unions need to have sufficient members retire, quit, or no longer remember the pan of the last strike. We will see if the strike/lockout pain last time just three years ago was sufficient.

Suzie wrote on Jun 20, 2007 5:41 PM:I am just curious, when you talk about a grocery store chain, that operates hundreds of local grocery stores, what kind of profits are reasonable? Certainly you don't believe that Albertson's is in business soley to provide food for their customers and jobs for their employees. Is it not appropriate that they make say a 10% profit? I am sure given the gross amount of their sales, they aren't even making that. Shouldn't the pay scales reflect the level of skill and education required to do the assigned tasks? If higher wages are what you desire, shouldn't you work your way up thru the corporate ladder in order to get them? Why is it that people believe that they should be paid according to how much money the boss makes. I can tell you, I certainly don't give the gardner a raise just because I made more money this week.

Eric wrote on Jun 20, 2007 5:54 PM:Ive work for ** for the past 3 years and hardly make over $8 an hour which come January will be the new minimum, and when minimum went up earlier this year, the company said only those under minimum will get the raise, the union could do nothing, kind of a luck of the draw thing. So come Jan. it will probably happen again, all those under minimum will recieve a raise, which is completely un-fair to the employees that have commited years of service and loyalty to the company that expects World Class Service or ur fired. Just the thought that all the new kids are going to be making what took me 3 years to earn and they dont even have a quarter of the resposibility that is put on the shoulders of us in the outside departments, all they have to do is show up and not screw off. 40 bucks comes out of my check every month for union dues and they go to a union that when the rep comes to visit our store, its like I dont exist, the only people they seem to care about are the dept. heads, meat cutters. supervisors and checkers. Durring these contract talks the union has not met face to face with the company to work out some of the issues theyre having, they meet with the moderator who then goes and meets with the company and then back to the union, obviously this isnt working and its taking four times the ammount of time it should. And all the unions employees are still making their big bucks, just like the employers, the longer these talks drag on. The reason why 54% of employees have health care compared to over 90% years ago is the fact that the wages are soo low that the only people able to work a job in the grocery industry are high school kids and college students that mostlikely live at home, none of them need health care because theyre all students and are mostlikely covered by their parents. Give it a few more years and the only adults working at these stores will be the Manager and Asst. Manager, kids will be running everywhere. It sucks to think that years ago this industry treated their employees right, people made a living and retired without struggling to make ends meat. Im just a very frustrated worker that has lost all hope in this so called United Union. Im tired of hearing all these lies from both sides of the table and thinks its about time for someting to change. I dont think a strike is the answer, and woudnt hesitate crossing to work with the many others that cant afford the compensation that the union hands out for picketing, and theres no way the union can afford to pay workers from all 3 companies for any ammount of time, thats why so many Vons employees had to cross in 03, after a few months the union ran out of money and had to cut back what they were giving out. Im sure this may not make sense but just reading this article and reading some comments, I just had to rant.

The General wrote on Jun 20, 2007 5:58 PM:Strike & Lockout (definitions-Source UFCW) Strikes and lockouts are an unfortunate by-product of the workforce when employers decide to arbitrarily disregard workers rights. UFCW Canada utilizes our legal right to strike in order to help maintain the quality of our collective agreements for all our members. UFCW Canada, like other unions, tries to avoid strikes, but when push comes to shove, we are willing to show the employer that we are serious about our demands by going on strike in support of them. Strikes are defined as a work stoppage to force an employer to come to an agreement with the union. A strike is a means to an end, but never an end in itself. While a strike begins when we decide to stop working, a lockout  begins when the employer decides to stop employees from working. Sometimes employers shut down their operations in the course of a dispute with their employees, to put pressure on the workers. Lockouts are in many ways the same as strikes, except it is the employer who has decided to bring the operation to a halt. The National Training and Education Department offers an extensive materials package to help local unions with the preparation of strikes and lockouts. From a training guide for staff representatives and picket captains to booklets on Being Prepared and the Picket Captains manual, a pocket sized reference book for the picket line. Strikes are union initiated...Lockouts are company initiated. You're welcome in advance for the explanation and the history lesson example. My apology for only giving one example, I will not wast any more of my time with ingorance and arrogance. Grasshopper, when you have walked the ricepaper it's full lenght and left no trace, then you will know... (Lockout Example below) CBC to lock out staff August 13, 2005 Even on-air employees like Peter Mansbridge won 't be on the job Monday if last-minute talks fail CBC viewers could be tuning in to some unfamiliar faces Monday as Canada's public broadcaster braces itself for the possible lockout of 5,500 unionized employees, including national news anchor Peter Mansbridge. Managers could find themselves filling in for staff -- operating cameras, editing news copy and even toting boom microphones at football games -- as of 12:01 a.m. Monday if the broadcaster can't reach a deal with its union, the Canadian Media Guild.

Reardon wrote on Jun 20, 2007 6:33 PM:Easy Suzie, your comments are way too logical and far too concise for this Blog. We have people on this Blog who say they own a company, are self-employed and will see me on the picket line tomorrow, while they quote the Picket Captains Manual. Anomalies abound on this Blog. It is all moot tomorrow as the third or fourth “deadline” appears. Or perhaps not. The Union is n a very weak position, but they are desperate because Wal-Mart is on the near horizon, and the public is still dispirited in union support by the last strike. The Union may decide that suicide is the best way to "teach us a lesson."

To The General wrote on Jun 20, 2007 6:44 PM:I'm not Reardon, but you have (in my opinion) failed miserably in providing an answer to his request. The CBS situation was a direct result of union interference. Also, it doesn't seem as though the definition of Strike & Lockout were ever in question. You seem to be one who likes to hold on to definition and symbolism instead of taking a personal responsibility and common sense approach to the issue. Please try again. I will also be interested in hearing a factual example of a union-less lockout.

The General wrote on Jun 20, 2007 9:43 PM:How about this example. No strike vote here, just workers who wanted to be represented by the union ( A defined right by labor law) and without union provocation Walmart decided to close the store rather than operate a unionized store. What cowards! No picket lines...just plain old fear. Someone in Canada probably did utter those fierce words, "Shame on you Walmart." Read on...Truth hurts at first...when you rheart changes then it won't hurt as bad and then you too can begin to live in the truth. There is hope for the blind!! Jonquiere - Wal-Mart Canada shut down its unionized Jonquiere store a week ahead of schedule in an obvious attempt to escape a growing wave of criticism directed at its anti-labour policies. Rather than wait for the May 6 2005 closing date it had announced, Wal-Mart closed the doors of the store on April 30, claiming merchandise had run low on the shelves. The closure was announced after the store was organized last year by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW Canada). Rather than permit a legal union to gain a toehold in its vast global empire, the Arkansas-based giant chose closure as a means of chilling organizing efforts across its huge empire.

Mike wrote on Jun 20, 2007 10:11 PM:Suzy you hit the nail on the head! You are Blessed; obviously you, or your husband work hard and are well compensated. The grocery workers will never be able to afford a "gardner." The grocery workers are just trying to put food on the table; clothe themselves and their children; pay for health care and put gas in the tank to get to work. If you are concerned that the grocery workers are paid too much, why not direct your time and efforts to try and reduce the wages of Target employees---I think that they receive better pay than the grocery workers!!

Mark wrote on Jun 21, 2007 6:35 AM:My Circuit City example was to point out the reprehensible behavior of corporate America. It is becoming all too common that companies engage in immoral conduct to the detriment of their LONG TERM employees. The employees that have given much of their lives to the company. This is the same type of corporate stupidity that brought unions into power in the first place. Many of you non-union types need to spend a bit of time studying the history of the labor movement in the US. Labor unions are the ones that brought you the weekend, paid holidays, vacations and health and welfare benefits. Even if you aren't employed in a union job, the "culture" of a benefits package was inspired by organized labor. And the inverse is turning out to be true too... As union job benefits decrease, so goes the rest of the country. YOUR job is next.

The General wrote on Jun 21, 2007 7:02 AM:Mike you must be carpenter by trade for as well as you nailed Suzie's comments. A union carpenter that is as I can tell by the craft and superior work. Wasn't my initial point don't muzzle the ox way backwhen? Yes, I agree most of the oxes (or slaves as some people despise) can't afford a gardner, housecleaner and I'll take it a bit further...how about a family trip to disneyland! God Bless you Mike. Keep praying but becareful if you ever tell anyone shame on you. You might be branded as a thug or something.

To The General @9:43PM wrote on Jun 21, 2007 7:22 AM:Again, not a good example. The store was already scheduled for closure and simply did so earlier than scheduled. And I would have done the same thing. I own two business that will never be union simply because I don't need a group of over-compensated thug extortionists to tell me how to run my business. And guess what, if my employees don't like it (and would rather work union) they are more than free to leave.

Reardon wrote on Jun 21, 2007 7:37 AM:Cheers for Wal-Mart. They did what should be done when faced with unions -- close the doors and seek a better environment that is business friendly. It is inescapable that an owner must take on government at all levels as a silent, non-investing partner but taking on a union as a non-investing partner that wants to participate in profits and help run every part of the company is voluntary. I told my employees when I started a company that if threatened by union organization, I would not sell the company. I would liquidate, immediately. They threaten me, I threaten them. (I love equality!) In the corporate world I had to deal with an existing AFTRA, but they were at least not of the no-neck, physical threatening variety such as we have seen on this Blog. Still, their "work rules" were absolutely arcane -- three people to do one job, but there is sufficient profit in the TV industry to sustain low performance. That will not be so for long in the grocery business, where competition is fierce and automation is ever-threatening. The financial bar to establishing a grocery chain is huge, but if the unions want to they can start one and discover what labor-owned companies (ESOPS) have always learned: labor costs must be controlled.

To Suzy wrote on Jun 21, 2007 8:32 AM:Boy are you in the wrong place. There is no room for such common sense around here! But I'm really glad to see that somebody gets it!!!

Close The Stores wrote on Jun 21, 2007 8:34 AM:The union grocery chains should just close their business, re-open under a new name and refuse any attempts to unionize them.

The General wrote on Jun 21, 2007 9:02 AM:this response is for whoever "To the General" was and to Reardon and anyone that needs enlightening on the issue. There is no such thing as a "Union-Less Lockout". Are you really that ignorant to ask for an example of a lockout that happened when there was no union involved? If there is no union to represent the emploee and the employer is not happy with the actions of the employee, guess what ...Trump said it best..."Your'e fired!!!" Lockouts happen when the company acts because they are in disagreement with the union representing and in most cases they Lock out employees because it is to their advantage to do so (i.e. better quarter of the year for the corporation, disruption of organized efforts, or the good old american way of racketeering-profit sharing like Albertsons, Ralphs and Vons/Safeway did in 2003. I didn't make the laws so don't get made at me. Take your aggressions out on the pavement and drop and give me 50 for posing such ignorant questions! After your done, again look up the definition of respect and read it once more as you are not there yet!

Suzie wrote on Jun 21, 2007 10:47 AM:Just for the record Mike, I am a single mom, and darn right I have worked hard. Darn right I have moved up the ladder, I have worked in health care for the last 23 years at a mid managers level, even went back to school. Guess what, I make about $3/hr more than the local Vons checker with 5 years experience. I own a mobile home and work a second job so I can have a gardner because my back won't take it anymore. Yes, I think these guys are over paid, and yes I think a company has a right to make a profit.

Reardon wrote on Jun 21, 2007 12:09 PM:Easy Suzie -- The General will quote either the Bible. or the Picket Captain's Manual to you. No, neither is germane but he holds them up like holding a cross before a vampire, and demands "respect. An employers duty is to pay as little as possible so as to make a profit and repay investors. An employee's job is to find a job that he/she can do that pays the most money, commensurate with their education, skill, and/or physical drive. Business is not a charity. Doesn't ANYONE teach basic economics any more? (That is an apocryphal question, and if you don't understand the word that is why you are paid so little!) The “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” has been fully discredited, even in Russia, but apparently not in labor unions. They want to "share" that which they risked nothing to start, nothing to build, and nothing to expand. They provide only time and can come and go at will. If they are so unhappy, you might ask, why do they stay and complain when the door is so close? Then they can start their own business, as I have, by mortgaging their home. I had, at one time, a First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Trust Deed on my house just to stay in business. It would have been much easier to work for a salary, and I really would have resisted employees demanding more money while I struggled. They risked NOTHING. Then they want to "share" my "profits" while refusing to share my risks. As soon as they take a share of my obligations, they can take a share of my profits. Put the money on the table!

To The General wrote on Jun 21, 2007 12:43 PM:It sounds like you finally understood the question. I have no aggressions and the only pavement I plan on being on should this strike occur is in the parking lot of Albertsons as I get ready to cross the line and shop there. I am very familiar with the definition of respect and there is nothing disrespectful about a disagreement of opinions. If you have a problem with differences then ... shame on you!

To Reardon @ 12:09 PM wrote on Jun 21, 2007 1:45 PM:Well Said!

The General wrote on Jun 21, 2007 3:33 PM:Reardon, nice try but using large words out of context in not impressive. Ironically the 2nd definition of "apocryphal" is listed as...false, spurious which is a common theme among your posts. If Suzie is feeling a bit shameful now...let her work it out for herself. She may just be beginning to see what we've been trying to get across the entire time. She may be starting to think twice about her words and may be seeing for the first time workers as people. For the record anyone may disagree and have a different opinion. Crossing the picket line is a fact of life and some do it. If you decide to cross one that is a personal choice for you to make. If you are crossing merely because you think that employees are not entitled to profits and that is the only issue on the table then OK. But, If you are crossing a picket line where the workers (detested slaves to some of you) are fighting so that there cost for medical benefits are going up 1000% , their top rate of pay was reduced 33% (note: they aren'y striking about not getting a raise) and that they now have a cap or limit set 25% package total of what the old compensation package once was than that is shameful. If I was on that picket line I would let you and the public around you know it. Is there any life out there at all, anyone, anyone who might still care about people and your fellow american worker? I know, I know...it's business and in basic economics they don't discuss or go over the percentages of disabled workers , single moms, ex-cons, and the elderly people that are now the growing statistic that business professors and politicians can say look un-employment is down and look at how many more jobs we have created. If you don't believe this is true then see for yourself and open your eyes and "talk " to a grocery worker in the local grocery store you shop. You will find that there are more and more "Pride Workforce" Disabled mental and physically and elderly people right away. Now you won't necessarily know if a woman is a single mother unless you ask, but I warn you that is risky. You may start to care about the people behind the uniforms. That ought to be some food for thought for a while. Chew slowly or you may be purging again real quickly. I wouldn't be surprised though. In our fast paced society that is all about the "Me-Monsters". Don't be a "Me Monster" care about workers (all workers) and people! Enough said. General is out!

The General wrote on Jun 21, 2007 3:49 PM:Reardon and to the people that agree with him. Do you call it "potato or po-taught-o?" Just a question. when I answer your questions or give you an example, your response is always the same..."Tha'ts not a good example." Very predictable and you all just strike me as very opinionated, passionate , but misinformed people. PLease no more purging, you are bringing down this thread...Thanks...Take a big deep breath, breathe out, repeat as many times as necessary. oxygen to your brains will help to further this highly intellectual and narcissistic blog

Suzie wrote on Jun 21, 2007 5:41 PM:I don't know what I would have to feel shamefull about, nor do I know why I would rethink my position. CLEARLY, you missed my point. It is simply that businesses have a right to make a reasonable profit. They owe their workers nothing but a paycheck that is equivilent to the education or skill they bring to the business, and that has nothing to do with their profits. No business should be expected to pay a wage based on what you think you need or are entitled to. If you want to improve your financial status, then go to school, work the corporate ladder, and bring up YOUR value. Grocery scanners, deli workers and bag persons are not high level employees and therefore are not entitled to high level compensation. As far as health care costs go, yes the employee is having to share more of the burden, that is true for all sectors of the workforce, why would the grocery industry be any different? If you are blessed to have earned a terrific education or have managed to work yourself up to a highly paid position, congratulations, you can afford the BMW and the 4 bedroom California house, if not then you need to adjust your expenditures to your earnings, not everyone gets the gold package. Alberson's does not owe you a house, a car or your childs higher education, if thats what you want then you will have to find a way to earn it, maybe a managment position and a good 401k. Don't expect rocket science wages for dishwasher skills. The American workforce has become spoiled and lazy and entitled.Your fabulous unions destroyed the automobile industry, have destroyed the school system, and wiped out city and state budgets, all to get less done. The only place of value for the unions anymore is in the construction industries, where continious employment is rare and therefore a union provides the continuity needed for benifits such as health care, vacation and the like. Just one last note, God does for those who do for themselves.

John wrote on Jun 21, 2007 6:06 PM:Reardon, are you a Human being?

Amen!!! wrote on Jun 21, 2007 6:38 PM:Go Suzie!!!!

ExStoreMgr wrote on Jun 21, 2007 7:31 PM:Suzie - Why do construction workers deserve the "continuity needed"? Why are they entitled to continuity. Can they not take a job in a supermarket when their industry goes through a tough spell? Your position lost my support with this completely incongruous argument.

.Reardon wrote on Jun 21, 2007 8:57 PM:Yes, John, I am a human. I believe that people should seek to help themselves and their families by preparing themselves through almost free education, and selling their services to whomever will give them a chance to compete and make even more money. That, I think is the proper path. There is another path: Do not prepare yourself even though education is free or nearly so, getting a job, and then demanding that the person or company that gave you a chance to show your stuff, give you more money than YOU agreed upon on the threat of hurting the business that you ASKED to give you a chance. (The word "ingrate" comes immediately to mind.) If the person or company YOU chose and then ASKED for a job disappoints you, go quickly down the street -- but the absolutely immoral thing to do is to try to extort money from the person or company that YOU begged for a job, and were HAPPY to take the money they offered. If you are unhappy and believe you are worth more money, tell the boss and ask for a raise. If you are refused because the boss or company is not what you thought, or turned insane overnight from when you voluntarily took the job -- go and seek your fortune elsewhere. There is no right to work for any particular company, or to be employed in any particularly industry. There is no right to MAKE you work for any company or in any industry. YOU ASKED FOR THE JOB! YOU KNEW THE PAY SCALE! If the company or industry is low-paying now, it was low-paying when you BEGGED for the opportunity to work there. Live with it or see if someone values you more. Paying people more than they are worth, or demanding through extortion to be paid more than you are worth, seems less than human to me.

To The General wrote on Jun 21, 2007 9:08 PM:News Flash ... health care costs are going up for everyone everywhere. Don't look for me to sympathize with others having to pay the same bills I do to survive.

The General wrote on Jun 21, 2007 10:22 PM:Extra, Extra... one doesn't have to go far to see that this has become an epidemic in America and our culture. Who cares about anyone else..."I am in it for me, me & me." It has been a long time since we have had a President that said things like " Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country." I know that was then and this is now. Guess what, this all about me attitude isn't working out so well. Even if you believe that unions are disfunctional, you should still be supporting american workers, companies & products. You defend and cheer for Walmart like they are America's saving grace. You fools, they are pillaging comunities and putting your fellow Americans (including American medium to small business owners) out of business. For what , so we can buy all of the cheapest crap from China and 3rd world countries we want and as a result make China and the priviledged few of the Walton family rich. How you sleep at night with that I'll never understand...I guess you have been convinced by some college professor that that is great business saavy and the American way. I know I am to forgive my enemies , even when I don't want to so I am going to make that decision now and forgive your attacks on workers. Please forgive me if I have offended you. We really all do need eachother and at least from where I am standing I am OK with myself and what I am defending. I have no control over your actions, nor do I want to as I wouldn't want the consequences you may bring upon yourself. God Bless workers! Know that I am with you and support you all. The term narcissism means love of oneself, and refers to the set of character traits concerned with self-admiration, self-centeredness and self-regard. The name was chosen by Sigmund Freud, from the Greek myth of Narcissus, who was doomed to fall in love with his own reflection in a pool of water. While everyone is narcissistic to some degree, extreme narcissism can be highly dysfunctional, and is classified as a pathology called Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

The General wrote on Jun 21, 2007 10:37 PM:Go Mark, Mike John & Eric! This is like a volleyball match. Who wins?.......workers will win...America corporations needs them! Without them there isn't a base to continue selling services and goods to. The American way is to squeeze the worker just enough without snuffing out their life. Sickening...some might call this inhumane! It is ok they are only workers (not much more than despised servants) Someone once told me that the human race was the most dangerous predator to humans...with some of the attitudes I have seen on this thread, I restmy case!!!

Jason wrote on Jun 22, 2007 12:28 AM:dude i work at vons and i hate it. they are so mean to their workers! im sorry but it feels like they are taking advantage of us, the workers

The General wrote on Jun 22, 2007 7:12 AM:Ex store manager...Just a thought here. Maybe someone close to suzie (I.e. family, friends) are constructions workers, maybe not? If so (we'll really never know anyway because of the 1st name rules here) that tends to be another example of the "I care if affects me attitude out there." Keep praying for American workers as they are under attack in this counrty from all angles , even their fellow Americaln. God Bless Union (and all American workers) we need them!

The General wrote on Jun 22, 2007 7:57 AM:I am wondering something here. DiD Reardon and the siders with the Corporate American way really take in the above article? Reading and article is one thing. Actually reflecting on what has been written and letting it sink in is another. Learning and enlightenment may develop. Watch out this to can lea