I just got something in my email box from the Democratic Party of Orange County. And I guess since this is such a special event, I should share it with you. There will be a special screening of the eye-opening documentary, “Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price”…
And Co-producer Rick Jacobs, who also happens to chair the Courage Campaign, will be here to talk to us after the film about how Wal-Mart is affecting Orange County’s economy and communities, as well as the entire rest of the nation.

Follow me after the flip for more on this special event…

OK, here’s the email:

The Democratic Party of Orange County and Orange County Central Labor Council are proud to present a special OC screening of “Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price.”

The screening will be on Tuesday, April 10, 2007, at 7:00 pm, and will take place at the IBEW Local 441, 309 N. Rampart, Suite M, Orange, CA 92868. Immediately following, there will be a group discussion about the effect Wal-Mart is having on Orange County, and the entire nation.

Joining us will be Rick Jacobs, co-founder and chair of Brave New Films as well as Chair of the Courage Campaign, an independent political committee on progressive issues in California. He chaired the presidential campaign of Howard Dean in California and serves as Senior Advisor to Democracy for America. He is a featured contributor to Arianna Huffington’s huffingtonpost.com.

“Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price” takes the viewer on a deeply personal journey into the every day lives of families struggling to fight against a goliath. The film is based on individual human beings, all over the world, at all levels of society, telling their story in very personal terms.

The event is open to the public and media. Please RSVP to attend.

You can RSVP by clicking here: http://walmart.brave…

See you there!

Sincerely,

Mike Levin
Democratic Party of Orange County

So would you like to join us on April 10, and find out how Wal-Mart is REALLY affecting our community? If so, please RSVP for the event…
And join us at IBEW Local 441 in Orange for the movie!

(Oh, yeah! I almost forgot to tell you that this whole blogfight started with Mike Lawson’s “Why join a union?” post at The Liberal OC. Now go forth, and give Mike some love for standing up for working people! : ) – promoted by atdleft)

[…] Once effective, a powerful legislation ensuring worker’s rights will totally nullify the existence of unions altogether. However, what union would want to lose power? In states where they have a commanding power in the legislature, they thrive on their newly found existence. To me, it merely amounts to nothing more than political penis envy on their part.

That was my good friend Ryan Gene Williams, of Orange Juice, talking about why unions supposedly REALLY DON’T want the state and federal governments regulating workers’ rights. Wow, and who would have guessed that the unions suffer from “political penis envy“?

For more on why my good friend is wrong about unions and the political process, follow me after the flip…

So what else does Ryan Gene have to say about unions and the workers who join them? Here are his thoughts about pensions:

Well, pensions are fun little things aren’t they? Let’s put in 30 years at work and then get paid for sitting around watching CSI reruns on cable during retirement. The obvious argument for that is if you aren’t working, you shouldn’t get paid. Pension lovers will then, of course, scream that it’s their right for getting paid while sitting on their ass doing nothing.

The big problem I have with that, especially in the public sector, is what about my generation? It was the baby-boomer “all about me” generation that brought in pensions in the first place, but my generation (their kids of the baby-boomers) will have to foot the bill for everything going on today. While our parents are living high and mighty in retirement, we’re going to have to pay the inevitable higher taxes that come along with it, and help pull our cities out of bankruptcy for engaging in such asinine practices to begin with. We’re not going to have the so-called luxury of pensions because down the road we won’t be able to afford it. My generation, and those younger than us, won’t have the luxury of Social Security either but, that’s a discussion for another day.

Well, actually it was that “all about me” Greatest Generation that brought about pensions during World War II. And oh yes, this was originally brought about when wage freezes prohibited outright increases in employee pay. But anyways, what is so wrong about retired employees getting the just rewards of all their hard work? And what’s all this talk of “higher taxes” and “bankruptcy”? These workers earned their retirement benefits, and it’s their right to collect.

And oh yeah, perhaps if certain municipalities didn’t underfund their pension funds for public employees, then there wouldn’t be a crisis to whine about!

But anyways, back to the “penis envy” of the unions:

What’s that old phrase that everyone loves to say but never do? Call your congressman, is it? If the federal (or state government) can make a law, ensuring that all of us pay taxes every year, or that no more than 2000 sheep shall be allowed on Hollywood Blvd., then how hard can it be for lawmakers to legislate worker’s rights?

I doubt that’ll ever happen. Once effective, a powerful legislation ensuring worker’s rights will totally nullify the existence of unions altogether. However, what union would want to lose power? In states where they have a commanding power in the legislature, they thrive on their newly found existence. To me, it merely amounts to nothing more than political penis envy on their part.

I think we already have government laws protecting workers’ rights. And after all, if it weren’t for the unions advocating workers’ rights legislation, I doubt that we’d have a 40 hour work week, a minimum wage, and collective bargaining in this nation. Nope, we need unions because unions allow for workers to organize and form a strong alliance to negotiate against the strong alliance that is the corporation.

OK, so Ryan Gene still doesn’t want to believe me? Then read this from the Economic Policy Institute:

An extensive array of labor laws and regulations protects workers in the labor market and the workplace. From the National Labor Relations Act and Social Security Act of 1935 to the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993, labor unions have been instrumental in securing labor legislation and standards. However, beyond their role in initiating and advocating enactment of these laws and regulations, unions have also played an important role in enforcing workplace regulations. Unions have provided labor protections for their members in three important ways: 1) they have been a voice for workers in identifying where laws and regulations are needed, and have been influential in getting these laws enacted; 2) they have provided information to members about workers’ rights and available programs; and 3) they have encouraged their members to exercise workplace rights and participate in programs by reducing fear of employer retribution, helping members navigate the necessary procedures, and facilitating the handling of workers’ rights disputes (Weil 2003; Freeman and Medoff 1984; Freeman and Rogers 1999).

Unions have played a prominent role in the enactment of a broad range of labor laws and regulations covering areas as diverse as overtime pay, minimum wage, the treatment of immigrant workers, health and retirement coverage, civil rights, unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation, and leave for care of newborns and sick family members. Common to all of these rules is a desire to provide protections for workers either by regulating the behavior of employers or by giving workers access to certain benefits in times of need (Weil 2003; Davis 1986; Amberg 1998). Over the years, these rules have become mainstays of the American workplace experience, constituting expressions of cherished public values (Gottesman 1991; Freeman and Medoff 1984).

Less well recognized perhaps, is the important role that unions play in ensuring that labor protections are not just “paper promises” at the workplace. Government agencies charged with the enforcement of regulations cannot monitor every workplace nor automate the issuance of insurance claims resulting from unemployment or injury. In practice, the effectiveness of the implementation of labor protections depends on the worker’s decision to act. This is done either by reporting an abuse or filing a claim. Unions have been crucial in this aspect by giving workers the relevant information about their rights and the necessary procedures, but also by facilitating action by limiting employer reprisals, correcting disinformation, aggregating multiple claims, providing resources to make a claim, and negotiating solutions to disputes on behalf of workers (Freeman and Rogers 1999; Weil 2003; Hirsch, et al. 1997).

So can one still say that unions have “political penis envy”? No, in fact, unions EMPOWER workers by ensuring that their voices are heard. So basically, to answer Ryan Gene’s initial question:

Is that something the Democrats could legislate both at the state and federal levels?

… I must answer that this has already been done, and that unions have so far been the best ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM to ensure that workers’ rights are protected.

And oh yes, what if folks don’t want to be in a union?

We can play the “what if” game until the cows come home, but let’s say that I had to get a job at Ralphs and bag groceries? Or since I’m working towards my teaching credential right now, if I wanted to be a teacher and not join the union, would I not be able to work? I should be able to work in any profession with, or without, a union card. Shouldn’t that be my right? What if we go on strike? How would I be able to work and make money? Of course in that case, I’d go to work anyway.

At least I’m holding up my end of the bargain as a respectful employee. The boss man might find it worth it and promote me… which would be an awesome benefit! Plus, think of all the cash I’d collect from the raise alone. That’s collective bargaining… hehe. 😉

Ummm… Again, all those benefits WOULDN’T BE THERE if there weren’t a union there. These workers like their jobs because of the high wages and good benefits, so why not ask the workers to be part of a collective bargaining group that ensures that these high wages and good benefits are protected? Maybe the “boss man” will temporarily reward the “scabs“, but what happens to the “scabs” when they’re suddenly demoted, or mistreated, or fired? Where can they turn for help? Oops, no union to help them collectively bargain for better.

So can we NOW see why unions help, and why they’re not just suffering from “penis envy”?

This just in from The OC Register:

Members of the union that represents faculty at the 23 campuses of the California State University system have voted to strike, potentially creating disruptions at campuses around the state, including Fullerton and Long Beach.

“We do not want to strike, but we will,” John Travis, president of the California Faculty Association, said at a news conference this morning at Cal State Dominguez Hills announcing that 94 percent of union members who voted agreed to the job action. “We are a faculty that is fed up and we are a faculty that is ready to walk off the job.”

Union officials said they plan to hold two-day strikes to minimize disruptions to student classes, to take place in April and May.

Faculty members are unhappy that they’ve been unable to reach a new contract agreement with the CSU system since the previous contract expired in 2005. They also are displeased with their pay structure and heavier workloads.

So it looks like the faculty will be marching after all… Though in two-day shifts that are aimed to minimize any negative impact on the students and their education. And though CSU can afford to pay its faculty better, it doesn’t look like the Chancellor and administration are interested in treating the faculty with the respect that they deserve. Let’s just hope that this wakes up the state, and that CSU starts treating its staff with more respect.

The 2003-2004 Southern California UFCW grocery worker’s strike and lockout was a low point in the history of the labor movement in America.  Grocery employees picketed the three major chain stores for 140 days, and despite public support, in the end they got almost nothing that they wanted, were forced to take on a burdensome two-tiered wage system (one for new employees and one for old ones), and scarcely impacted the bottom line of these huge conglomerates, who consequently turned the grocery worker job from a stable middle-class profession to the equivalent of flipping burgers.  It was disgraceful and deeply troubling that the lives of tens of thousands of workers in California were turned upside down.

Now there’s a chance to rectify it.  And you can help.

First, a little history.  In October of 2003, members of the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) voted to strike at Von’s, a major Southern California supermarket chain owned by Safeway, Inc.  The other two big chains, Albertson’s (aka Supervalu) and Ralph’s (aka Kroger) locked out their workers within hours.  It was an example of the collusion by the big chains that characterized the whole strike.

The main issue was the health benefits of the workers, paid entirely by the company; Von’s wanted the workers to pay 50% of health costs under a new contract. They also wanted to introduce a two-tier wage system… Beginning in early October, 70,000 members of the UFCW were on strike in the region.

Since the U.S. has no national health care system, health benefits are often one of the most important parts of employee compensation. The average wage of a southern California UFCW worker is less than $12 per hour, and most workers are guaranteed only 24 hours of work per week. Many workers hold the job mainly for the health benefits.

I remember most the expressions of public support during the strike and lockout.  The chain stores were almost completely empty.  Trader Joe’s was a mob scene, walking in there was like walking into some postwar zone.  The shelves were ransacked, people were breaking open boxes faster than the stockboys could take everything out.  Indigenous people were selling crafts in the aisles, an attempted coup broke out in produce, people were spray-painting “Viva La Revolucion” on the organic broccoli. (OK, the rest of that didn’t happen.)

The point was that Southern Californians were by and large not crossing the picket line and respecting the right of the workers to bargain for fair wages.  This is especially salient because the employees were mostly bargaining for future workers, so that they could get better pay and benefits.  I remember dressing my dog up for Halloween as a striking grocery worker (and if the picture was on this computer, you’d be seeing it right now).  People really understood the issue and went out of their way to honor the strike.  Supermarkets lost roughly $2.5 billion in revenue.

And that’s when the chains started to play dirty.

On October 31, they pulled the pickets from Ralphs as a gesture of “good faith” to focus them on Von’s; the employers immediately announced that they would be sharing profits and losses during the strike – thus showing at least that the capitalists have class solidarity. The union went so far as to urge people to shop at Ralphs, where their own members were locked out. Even though the chains are all national, with total sales of $30 billion a year, the unions shyed away from any national strategy, sending a few “informational pickets” to outlets in northern California and elsewhere.

This ended up being a bad strategy because Ralph’s traffic picked up and then they SHARED THE PROFITS with the other two chain stores, keeping all three afloat and able to sustain the revenue loss.  Furthermore, Ralph’s started illegally rehiring union workers under phony Social Security numbers to keep the business going.  The company eventually had to pay a SEVENTY MILLION DOLLAR FINE for “conspiracy, using a false Social Security number, identity fraud, falsifying information sent to the SSA and IRS, and failing to make proper payments to employee welfare benefits plans.”  Criminal charges for the executives are still pending.

The strike wore on and finally was settled in February 2004, as public support waned and the union ran out of money for strike pay.  It was a combination of factors that led to the awful contract they were forced to accept.  They instituted a two-tiered system that offers lower pay and benefits to new workers coming into the system.  And the health care benefits that the old workers retained were trimmed, which led to increased turnover in the business.  This blog post offers a great summation of why this strike just didn’t work as well as it could have.

A generation ago, this strike would have been a complete victory for the employees. They were able to close down their stores for several months. When those stores were regional, the employers would not have been able to sustain those kind of losses.

But the grocery industry is increasingly a national and multinational industry. The companies decided it was worth taking huge losses in one regional market if they were able to break the back of the union.

In fact, it’s paid off handsomely.

The chain stores’ main complaint was that Wal-Mart and other discounters were moving into the region, and they could not compete with stores that offer no benefits.  Three years later, Wal-Mart and other non-union grocery stores are not a factor in the Southern California market at all. 

The employers always point to Wal-Mart and Costco as major reasons they need to cut costs (and pay their grocery workers less), but Wal-Mart and Costco control less than 8% of the Southern California market, even less than they had in 2003 when the employers claimed that this competition was forcing them to reduce wages and benefits for their grocery workers.

Indeed, the three major chains have retained all of the market share they lost during the strike and then some, propelling them to record profits.  Ralph’s, Von’s and Albertson’s and their parent companies made between 2 and 3 billion dollars in profits last year.  Their CEOs took home up to $9 million in compensation.

Meanwhile, under this two-tiered system, nearly half of all grocery workers at these three chains are making less than the people who work right next to them doing the same job every day.  And practically nobody is receiving quality benefits.  Rick Wartzman spelled it out in an article in the LA Times:

The reason: These are folks who joined the Pleasanton, Calif.-based supermarket giant after the 4 1/2 -month strike and lockout that ended in February 2004. And under the contract the United Food and Commercial Workers union signed with Safeway, Kroger Co.’s Ralphs chain and Albertsons (now owned by Supervalu Inc.), new employees can’t get any health benefits for 12 to 18 months. Their families aren’t eligible to be covered for 30 months.

Going without insurance for so long “is completely stressful,” says Suzanne Demers, who went to work at Safeway’s Vons market in Redondo Beach in July 2004 and earns $10.50 an hour training others, filling in at the Starbucks station and tackling a range of additional tasks. “You just hope and pray that you don’t get sick.” […]

Right now, figures from the trust fund overseeing the health plan show that a mere fraction of lower-tier workers have been in the job long enough to qualify for coverage: just 3,312 out of 12,520 at Vons; 3,771 out of 11,474 at Albertsons; and 2,044 out of 8,438 at Ralphs.

And how long will most of these workers last before they, too, head for the exits?

This two-tiered system is churning employees of what used to be a potential career out of the business; it’s become a low-wage service job.  And it’s getting worse with every upper-tier employee that leaves and every lower-tier employee that replaces them.

The last contract for UFCW employees in SoCal expired a week ago; they granted a two-week extension and negotiations continue.  Stater Bros. and Gelson’s, two regional chains in the area, have agreed to remove the two-tiered structure.  But the big stores (the ones that can afford it) have not budged yet.  In the meantime, there’s a lot you can do to help.

The UFCW has a website at RespectWorkers.com.  There’s a petition over there that I ask all of you to sign.

By signing this petition, you are indicating your support for compensating grocery workers fairly, ensuring that they enjoy a share of the supermarkets’ billions in profits, and ending the current two-tiered wage structure by endorsing equal treatment for equal work.

Full Petition Text:

I believe Southern California’s grocery workers deserve respect, and I therefore stand with them in support of the following contract goals:

–Fair benefits and pensions for all employees

–Equal treatment for equal work

–Elimination of the two tier contract

Another way you can support the employees is by patronizing those stores which have stepped up to their responsibilities.  There is a worker-friendly store finder on their site which you can use to find the stores in Southern California which have shown respect for their employees.  If you’re not in the area, I would suggest that Safeway/Von’s, Albertson’s/Supervalu, or Kroger/Ralph’s are NOT stores that you need to reward with your business at this time, until this gets ironed out.  This can only work as a national strategy, in my view, because a national corporation can sustain a regional strike, as they did the last time.

I would also suggest that any Democratic candidate looking to make some headway in California would do well to highlight this issue RIGHT NOW and make sure that these large grocery chains are being held to account.

Nobody wants another strike.  But there is an opportunity to rectify the deep injustice to working people that was perpetrated in 2004, and to ensure basic fairness in the workplace.  I hope all of you can help with this project.

Amidst an absurdly low turnout, LA Mayor and nominal 2010 gubernatorial front-runner Antonio Villaraigosa was not quite successful enough to tip the school board in his favor – at least not yet.

There were 4 open seats on the school board.  Villaraigosa was fairly well assured to win 2.  He needed 3 for a majority on the board.  Here are the results:

In nearly complete returns, the mayor’s favored candidates finished ahead in three races and trailed in the fourth. But two of those leads were not sizable enough to avoid a May runoff, meaning that, once again, Villaraigosa’s school intervention plans could be put on hold […]

The two big-money contests pitted an incumbent against a challenger favored by the mayor. In those races, Villaraigosa faced one loss and one runoff. The union-backed Marguerite Poindexter LaMotte won handily in her South Los Angeles race and Villaraigosa-favored Tamar Galatzan and incumbent Jon M. Lauritzen headed to a May showdown in the San Fernando Valley.

The mayor officially sat out the battle in District 1, which pitted incumbent LaMotte against charter school operator Johnathan Williams.

He “sat it out,” most likely, because he didn’t want to get sullied by Williams’ defeat.  But he pretty much did everything but endorse him.  Williams outspent his oppoenent by 2-to-1 and still lost.

That the Galatzan-Lauritzen race is headed to a run-off is no surprise: the two had big money behind them, the challenger from the mayor and the incumbent from the teachers’ union.  Amazingly, the mayor was unable to put away the race in District 7, where Villaraigosa-endorsed Richard Vladovic will now go to a May runoff against retired principal and low-funded candidate Neal B. Kleiner.  That’s really surprising to me.

We’ll now see a UTLA firewall strategy for May.  Villaraigosa needs both seats to gain a school board majority.  And he seems to know that it’s a tall order, because he’s being conciliatory again:

Villaraigosa had planned to oust at the ballot box any board members who resisted his schools agenda, but amid Tuesday night’s uncertain outcome, he adopted a conciliatory tone. Earlier, he had called board President Marlene Canter, with whom he had refused to meet for months.

“I want to work with the school board,” he said in an interview. “I’m reaching out…. I’m looking for a partnership that’s focused on change and innovation. That’s what it’s been about from the beginning.”

Riiiight.  Why do I have trouble believing that one?  Must be the two million dollars funneled to candidates battling incumbent school board members.

Faculty for Cal State schools throughout California will begin voting today to determine whether to walk off the job over grievances regarding pay, class size, and health care.  If approved by a simple majority, faculty would begin a series of rolling two-day walkouts statewide.  The voting process will last into next week with the results announced soon afterwards.

The California Faculty Association website offers all sorts of resources to further understand the history of this issue.  Included is a full rundown of the 20 months of bargaining between the CFA and the State, including lots of neat graphs, tables and statistics (which I know we all love).  Of particular interest to me was the graph showing that it’s actually more lucrative to teach at community college than in the CSU system.

This comes at a time of exciting union activity throughout the California college and university system.  John Edwards appeared in Berkeley on Sunday and waxed poetic about the UC Berkeley janitors, saying, “This march for economic and social justice for the men and women who work at this university is a part of a bigger march in America for fairness and equality.”

Covered at Surf Putah and cross posted here at Calitics last week, the Associated Students of UC Davis have voted to support the unionizing efforts of Sodexho employees on campus.

With the Employee Free Choice Act passing the House last week, big things are happening.  Via the link we learn that “one in five union activists can expect to be fired during an organizing campaign … [and] 60 million U.S. workers say they would join a union if they could.”  The link also comes complete with YouTube action from California’s own George Miller.

Change is coming in a big way to the California education system.  Underpaid workers at the highest levels is just one aspect that’s coming to a head right now.  At the local and state level, the fight over how the educational system is going to operate is being waged.  The battle today is how we’ll treat the people who deliver knowledge.

I’ve been a little lax in talking about Tuesday’s elections in Los Angeles, maybe because I technically don’t live in Los Angeles and will not be voting.  Nevertheless, it’s actually critically important for the future of the state.

Richard Alarcon is running for LA City Council, his 35th office of the year, and he’s likely to take it.  But the intrigue surrounds the LAUSD school board elections, where Mayor Villaraigosa is essentially taking on UTLA in a battle that may go a long way to determining the future of California.

And I’m fairly serious about that.

This LA Times piece has the details.  Essentially there are two races worth watching on Tuesday, where Villaraigosa-backed candidates are matching up against UTLA-backed incumbents.  The winner will gain control of the school board, which Villaraigosa would like to push through his power-sharing arrangement to give the mayor most of the power and accountability for the LAUSD.

First, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa pushed to take over the Los Angeles Unified School District outright. Then, he crafted a bid for power-sharing. Now, he’s trying to get his way by proxy – by winning a school board majority Tuesday that, at last, would give him a powerful voice in the direction of local school reform.

But this is no sure thing either.

Standing in the way is United Teachers Los Angeles, the erstwhile ally of the mayor. The union backs two incumbents whose reelection would preserve the board majority that has thwarted Villaraigosa repeatedly.

In all, four of seven board seats are up for grabs. With one ally on the board already, the mayor needs three wins to secure a friendly majority. (The mayor is virtually assured of picking up two seats -ed.)

In the west San Fernando Valley’s District 3, Villaraigosa backs prosecutor Tamar Galatzan against UTLA-favored Jon M. Lauritzen. In District 1 in South Los Angeles, the union favors Marguerite Poindexter LaMotte against charter school operator Johnathan Williams, whom the mayor tacitly supports.

Total spending in the two campaigns is likely to surpass $3 million.

It’s not for nothing that this is a big-money set of races.  If the 2010 governor’s race were held today, Villaraigosa would have to be seen as the front-runner.  A loss to the teacher’s union would be a blow to his credibility and his ability to push forward his agenda.  The mayor has expended a tremendous amount of political capital on taking control of the schools.  If he cannot he will have trouble putting together a record of accomplishment, particularly with such challenges as increases in gang violence and an increased homeless problem happening on his watch).

All you need to know is that the LA Area Chamber of Commerce is supporting Villaraigosa’s slate, and his favored candidate in District 1 (he hasn’t come out and endorsed him) is a guy who built charter schools in South LA.  Also on Villaraigosa’s side are former Republican Mayor Richard Riordan and billionaires Steven Bing, Jeffrey Katzenberg and Eli Broad, among others.  On the side of the incumbents are UTLA, SEIU Local 99, the local Teamsters and others.

Tuesday should be very interesting.  Stay tuned.

On March 5, The UFCW Grocery Workers’ contract expires, and there isn’t much sign that the UFCW and the store owners are nearing an agreement.  In 2003/04, grocery workers went on strike for four and a half months in response to contract negotiations reaching an impasse, a strike that had major repercussions for the market share of supermarket chains and cost an estimated $2 billion.  Ownership doesn’t seem to have forgotten about that, despite the fact that most of that market share has been regained and, in certain places, surpassed.

The union’s website, packed full of goodies, can be found here, outlining what they’re up against, what they’re doing, and why.  You can also sign the petition of support if you’re so inclined, and find many other ways to get involved at the website or at the end of this diary.

The UT hit the high points of the situation recently, giving a solid rundown of the basics.  Albertsons (SuperValu), Ralphs (Kroger), and Vons (Safeway) account for about half of the grocery business in Southern California, and are stacked up against the 65,000 regional workers of the UFCW.  They’re contending over wage and health care, but the crux of the negotiations is the two-tiered employment system put in place as part of the last contract.

Under the two-tiered system, workers with longer tenure get better pay and benefits, while newer workers are paid less and must work longer to become eligible for benefits.  The union argues this amounts to different pay for equal work and contributes to high turnover, and they’re right on both counts.  While the stores are defending themselves by claiming that the market is increasingly competitive and they need to keep costs down, I wonder if they’ll feel the same way when the current batch of tenured employees retire (they’re getting up there from what I see at my local stores).

With all due respect to these stores, they have turned in billions in profits lately, and San Diego recently took steps to restrict the growth of big-box retailers.  And with the growth of CEO salaries, they aren’t really presenting a very sympathetic picture.

The benefits of strong and healthy unions have been covered all over the blogs, I won’t dive into it here.  But this is an opportunity for some solidarity.  Sign the petition, email corporate management, spread the news, share your experiences if you’ve worked in the industry, participate in their Text Respect drive, or any combination thereof.