Home arrow Forums arrow Your Union arrow The 2011 NorCal Grocery Contract

The 2011 NorCal Grocery Contract

page: prev  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 15, 16, 17  next
Display posts from previous:
Author Message
John Briley
Post Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 10:29 pm

Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 704
With Northern Ca. Food Negotiations resuming on or around Monday, January 9, 2012, I must say that I am beginning to wonder when the three (3) UFCW Local Union President's, Ron Lind /#5, Jacques Loveall /#8 & Michael Sharpe / #648 are going to start stirring up some shit with Raleys / Nob Hill, Safeway & Save Mart / Lucky?

http://ufcw5.org/ENegotiationsUpdate11CPDF.pdf

http://yourbreadandbutter.com/news/industry-discussions

After reading the above Local Union Negotiation Updates, what more do these three (3) Food Employer's have to threaten to takeaway from our Active / Retiree Members before our UFCW Leaders get off their asses and do something?

Specifically, as a Retiree, I am very concerned at the current Employer Proposal to Eliminate Retiree Medical Benefits.

The question I have is WHY????

Currently, if "eligible", Retirees are required to pay for their Medical Benefits from our Trust Fund.

If Retirees are already paying for their Medical Coverage, then WHY are these Employer's proposing to eliminate Retiree Medical Benefits in its entirety?

If the issue is what we currently pay for our Medical Benefits isn't covering the costs, then WHY don't the Employer's propose "modest" and "fair" increases to cover the costs?

Proposing to eliminate Retiree Benefits is totally unjust and unfair for our Retirees!

Clearly something else is going on here??

When you go back and review the 2007-2011 Contract Settlements with these same Unions and Employer's, two(2) issues come to mind.

1. Letter of Agreement Retiree H&W Committee
2. Letter of Agreement Re: Super Card

Additionally, following the 2008 UFCW International Convention, the introduction of the new "Associate Member" language into our UFCW I.U. Constitution raises some serious questions for me.

I believe that over the next several weeks with respect to the entire Retiree Medical issue, "UFCW Greed" will undoubtedly surface to the top??

I have this strange feeling that the Super Card / Associate Member language will come to the fore front as it pertains to "enticing" Retirees in one way or another to participate in some Super Duper Card Program that will be marketed by the UFCW as the best thing since "sliced bread"!!??

When you take a look at a "portion" of the Super Card Letter of Agreement one sentence stands out to me...

Quote:


The parties recognize that one of the purposes of the Super Card is to generate income.


Look Out.... when the UFCW admits in writing that something they have negotiated with the Employer's was intended to "generate income"....
Back to top profile :: pm
lucky75
Post Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:16 pm

Joined: 09 Nov 2011
Posts: 9
Quote:
If Retirees are already paying for their medical coverage, then why are these employers proposing to eliminate retiree medical benefits in its entirety?
[quote]

E-negotiations update no.10 says "Employer paid retiree health care" I've heard it said both ways at this time who knows who is right. Some retirees are on "self pay" and some pay the $70 a month premium depends when you retired.

Here is a thought.... what happens when actives are paying say $20 a week for health care and retirees are paying say $300 a month per person for their health care? Here is what happens all of the young actives will opt out...and many of the retirement age actives will not retire because they will not be able to afford the premium. The companies are still paying in for every hour worked but less people are getting the health benefit. This relieves the health trust fund as well as the pension fund.....It sounds to me like the fix is in on this one.....
Back to top profile :: pm
John Briley
Post Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 3:01 am

Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 704
Quote:
E-negotiations update no.10 says "Employer paid retiree health care" I've heard it said both ways at this time who knows who is right. Some retirees are on "self pay" and some pay the $70 a month premium depends when you retired.



lucky75.... The Union negotiated the 2007-2011 with these Employer's which included H&W contributions, Pension contributions, wages, language etc.....

Let me put it this way.... If the Union wasn't forcing these Employer's to pay for the above, make no mistake about it, our Food Employer's wouldn't pay for shit!!

Specifically, in a portion of UFCW Local 5's Food & Meat Agreement with Save Mart Supermarkets from December 2, 2007 - October 8, 2011 it reads:

Section 14. Health & Welfare and Sick Leave:

Section 14.2 (Employer Contributions / page 34 )

Quote:
Effective with hours worked in December 2010 and payable in January 2011, the Employer agrees to contribute six dollars and twenty cents ($6.20) until the expiration of this Agreement.


It is my understanding that the Retiree H&W cost is around $2.00 out of that $6.20 per hour H&W contribution??

With respect to the H&W costs for Retirees, I will share with you what I currently pay for myself and my wife on a monthly basis.

My H&W payment is taken directly out of my monthly Pension check from the Trust Fund Office and the remainder of my pension benefit is subsequently direct deposited to my account.

Medical = $70.00 per month
Vision = 16.00 per month
Dental = (did not select)

Total Monthly H&W = $86.00

Quote:
After reading the above Local Union Negotiation Updates, what more do these three (3) Food Employer's have to threaten to takeaway from our Active / Retiree Members before our UFCW Leaders get off their asses and do something?



With the economy and the uncertainty of what the future is going to bring to each and every Retiree, it is imperative that our UFCW Leaders immediately start making some drastic changes to the following archaic work restrictions on our Retirees:

Quote:


2010 Summary Plan Description (SPD)
UFCW Northern California Employers Joint Pension Plan

Suspension Of Benefits After Your Pension Payments Begin (Page 30.)

Once you retire, the Pension Plan places restrictions on the number of hours you can work in the same industry and in the same trade or craft in the same geographic area covered by the Plan while continuing to collect retirement benefits. Such work is defined as “Suspendible Service”, if you work more than 63 hours per calendar month.

You may work as vacation relief up to 756 hours in a calendar year, provided you notify the Administrative Office in writing in advance of the date you begin such employment.

Once a year you will be required to disclose all post-retirement employment. Your pension payments may cease until your response has been received by the Administrative office.

For additional information about restrictions on your employment after retirement, please contact the Administrative Office.

If you work in Suspendible Service your pension payment will be suspended for each month you work in excess of 63 hours per month. Your benefit will resume when you are no longer employed more than 63 hours per month.

Once you reach age 70, your retirement benefits will not be suspended, no matter how many hours you work. If your benefits are suspended before you reach age 70, they will no longer be suspended beginning the first day of the month after the month in which you reach age 70.

Back to top profile :: pm
lucky75
Post Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 3:09 pm

Joined: 09 Nov 2011
Posts: 9
Quote:
With respect to the H&W costs for retirees I what share with you what I currently for my wife and myself on a monthly basis.


John,I also pay the amount you pay having retired out of local 5.I now live in southern calif. and having just seen their contract settled they pay.......
$125 a month per person not a group plan they pay for each one on the plan just for medical.

You are correct they would not pay a thing if they were not forced to, the locals better get their act together and let the public know what they are trying to do to their retirees.....

I went through several strikes in my working years served as a shop steward and a picket captain.... we built this union and if is to survive they have to show strength not weakness!
Back to top profile :: pm
John Briley
Post Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 6:06 pm

Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 704
Quote:
You are correct they would not pay a thing if they were not forced to, the locals better get their act together and let the public know what they are trying to do to their retirees.....



lucky75.... if the UFCW Retirees who are currently receiving Medical Benefits under the 2007-2011 C.B.A. here in Northern Ca. do not immediately start demanding to keep their curent Medical Benefit coverage, including raising some serious shit with UFCW President's Ron Lind, Jacques Loveall and Michael Sharpe, WE might as well bend-over-and- kiss- our- asses- good-bye, as it pertains to depending on UFCW H&W Medical Benefit Coverage into the future!!!!!!

With respect to your comments about our Southern California UFCW Retirees and how they fared as a result of the recent Southern Ca. Settlement, here is the exact Retiree H&W language for those individuals who may not have had the opportuntiy to review it.

Quote:


Memorandum of Agreement Between Albertson's, Ralphs & Vons And UFCW Local Unions No. 8-GS-, 135, 324, 770, 1167, 1428 and 1442

Southern California UFCW Agreement

25. Article 15- Trust Funds C. Retiree Health and Welfare, Section 6 - Add the following new paragraph to Section 5 to read (MOA / Page 6.):

"Effective April 1, 2012 and annually thereafter, the pre-65 retiree co-premium shall be equal to $125 per person per month and the Post-65 retiree co-premium shall be equal to $50 per person per month. Thereafter, the retiree co-premium shall be adjusted by the same annual percentage increase of the Medicare Part B rates."


Now, by way of an example only, let us pretend for a moment that the Northern Ca. Food Employer's back off their original position to eliminate Retiree H&W Benefit Coverage as currently proposed...

Again, let us pretend for a moment that our UFCW Leaders here in No. Ca. adopt something similiar as their UFCW Leaders did in So. Ca., as it pertains to raising Retiree Co-Premiums here in No. Ca.

That would have the potential of being a catastrophic event for many of our Retirees!

Once again, I can not stress enough how important it is for each and every No. Ca. UFCW Retiree to contact their Local Union President and let them know your feelings!
Back to top profile :: pm
John Briley
Post Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 5:18 pm

Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 704
As previously predicted, it would only be a matter of time before the Big Three (3) Food Employer's in Northern Ca. would begin whining about WalMart, "alleged" non-union competetion, etc., here in Northern California......

Here some articles to that point!

Raley's To Close Two Stores, Including Bel Air in Elk Grove

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/11/4178711/raleys-to-close-two-stores-including.html

Sac Bee / 1/11/12
By: Mark Glover

Quote:
Raley's and other unionized grocers have been trying to reduce costs to cope with heightened competition from Wal-Mart and other nonunion supermarkets that pay lower wages. The competition threatens to erode what has for decades been a middle-class occupation for people without a college education.
In contract talks with the United Food and Commercial Workers union, Raley's, Safeway and Save Mart are seeking benefit and wage concessions from 60,000 workers in the Central Valey and Bay Area.



Raley's To Close 2 More Stores

http://supermarketnews.com/latest-news/raleys-close-2-more-stores-report

Supermarket News / 1/11/12

Quote:
The reports said the reason for the latest closures is the more than 250 non-union stores that have opened in Raley's operating area in Northern California and Nevada since 2008. "Since they're non-union, they can sell at a lower price, and with our operating costs, we have a situation where we have to lower costs to be able to compete," a Raley's spokesman was quoted as saying.



Non Union Competition Weighs on Contract Talks for Area Grocery Chains

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/23/4141823/nonunion-competition-weighs-on.html

Sac Bee / 12/23/11
By: Dale Kasler

Quote:
The grocers wouldn't discuss their proposals in detail. But Loveall and Lind said the supermarkets want to eliminate paid health care for retirees, and force current workers to start contributing to insurance premiums. The contributions could be as high as $23 a week, Lind said.
Also, the companies want to eliminate bonus pay for working nights, Sundays and holidays, the union officials said. Workers say this extra pay can add up quickly.
Tiernan said Raley's offer to the workers "will save the company millions and is critical to our future success."



Here is the article I am referencing:

Union Employers Must Speak Up

http://www.uncharted.ca/content/view/284/35/

With respect to the above, here is a recent article that appeared in our Salinas newspaper about the closing of a Save Mart store right down the street from the Super Walmart I was talking about in that article.

http://www.thecalifornian.com/article/20120104/NEWS01/201040314/Save-Mart-Salinas-Westridge-center-close?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFrontpage

The irony / hypocrisy regarding Raleys whining is the fact that they are the largest double-breasted Food Employer located in Northern California!

Interestingly enough, most of Raleys double-breasted stores just happen to fall within UFCW Local 8's jurisdiction???????

I think that it is important to note that, President Loveall rarely / never speaks about this fact in his Sac Bee newspaper interviews!

I wonder why?????
Back to top profile :: pm
SharynS
Post Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 6:04 pm

Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 2939
Location: the 'puter
What's also fascinating is that "the threat of walmart" doesn't seem to deter these same high end retailers from opening a new store in and about the same vicinity. It would seem that walmart traffic hitting the 'hood might not be all bad after all. Rolling Eyes

_________________
Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself. - Salman Rushdie
Back to top profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www
John Briley
Post Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:36 pm

Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 704
Quote:
It would seem that walmart traffic hitting the 'hood might not be all bad after all.
Sharyn.... you are right on point with that one.

In spite of all the whining from these three (3) employer's about WalMart and the "alleged" non-union competition just kicking the "shit-out-of-them etc....

These Employer's continue to perform quite well financially, when we look at the data.

SN's Top 75 North American food retailers and wholesalers for 2011. Total revenues, encompassing sales of food and nonfood merchandise, have topped $960 billion. Revenues for the 10 largest companies topped $666 billion, accounting for 69% of the combined volumes for all 75 companies. All information based on company reports or SN estimates

http://supermarketnews.com/top-75-retailers-wholesalers-2011
Quote:
Check out:

Safeway - No. 4

Save Mart Supermarkets - No. 31

Raley's Supermarkets - No. 43
Additionally, what we all do not hear from our UFCW Leaders and these three (3) Employer's, is the various "different" Food Contracts that the UFCW has with them that would be considered as NOT being the same as the Master Agreements!!!!
Back to top profile :: pm
John Briley
Post Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:19 am

Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 704
Quote:


Negotiations Resume
Efforts Redoubled to Reach
Just and Fair Contract


*New Town Hall Union Meeting Set*
February 2, 7PM SSF Office
and Everywhere Online

The week of Janary 9 marked the first face to face bargaining between UFCW locals 5, 8 and 648 and Safeway, Save Mart and Raleys since the holiday break. The unions used the time away from the bargaining table to meet with health and welfare consultants to look at benefits and how to pay for them for active and retired members. The bargaining team also met with the entire representational staffs of all three locals along with leaders from the international union to discuss the talks. Preparations were made for all possible contingencies that may develop as a result of negotiations.

Since Monday the 9th he parties have met and discussed retiree medical and alternate dispute resolution models for disagreements on worker comp issues. No agreements have been reached and the union and companies remain far apart on the issues. The main sticking point throughout the talks has been whether or not the companies will back off their uncalled for demands for concessions on benefits and wages for members in the stores and the elimination of medical for retirees. The union will not agree to these unreasonable requests and continues to work to reach an agreement that is acceptable to our working and retired members.

The negotiations page is in the process of being updated to include a section that lists all the proposals exchanged between the parties to date, check back soon for this new addition.

Make sure to tune in for the latest union town hall meeting. The update will be held live at the SSFoffice on February 2 at 7PM and streamed live everywhere else. You can ask questions and participate live and by email or text.



UFCW Local 5's Website Update ...
http://ufcw5.org/
Back to top profile :: pm
SharynS
Post Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:06 am

Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 2939
Location: the 'puter
Quote:
These Employer's continue to perform quite well financially, when we look at the data.
It also explains why they do shit to help keep walmarts out of communities. If walmart moving in next door hurts as much as 'they' say it does, then why do they sit on their hands and watch the giant encroaching. There's numerous instances and opportunity these retailers to have supported community resistance to walmart.

But they haven't, don't and won't. Only one thing to assume; the potential increase in customer traffic and the contract gutting opportunity that a walmart moving to town presents, must outweigh any loss or 'they' wouldn't be in business.

JB how do you see this ending (assuming it ever does). But if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, any chance it might not be a duck. I think it's a freakin' duck but then again I'm not there.

_________________
Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself. - Salman Rushdie
Back to top profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www
John Briley
Post Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 6:11 pm

Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 704
Following up on my last post, I couldn't help to notice the following portion of Local 5's Website Update that I found to be absolute Bull Shit!!!!!!!!!!
Quote:
The negotiations page is in the process of being updated to include a section that lists all the proposals exchanged between the parties to date, check back soon for this new addition.
To the extent that Local 5, Local 8 and or Local 648 will ever provide us all with any information that is believable, I wanted to share with you the following information between Local 5's President Ron Lind and myself, concerning various issues pertaining to these negotiations.

First, here is the complete text of an e-mail that I sent to President Lind and John Nunes, back on Tuesday, November 22, 2011.
Quote:
Hello Ron Lind and John Nunes -- As our Chief Negotiators for UFCW Local 5, I would like to request the following.

As outlined in UFCW Local 5's Negotiation Update #6:
http://ufcw5.org/PDF%20Files/ENegotiationsUpdate6.pdf

On October 17, 2011, UFCW Locals 5, 8 & 648 met with Raleys, Safeway and Save Mart and submitted a comprehensive list of proposals.

I would appreciate it if you could please provide me with the following information:

1. Copy of the Comprehensive List of Union Proposals submitted on 10/17/11.

2. Copies of any and all Employer Proposals submitted to the Unions up to today's date.

3. Copy of any additional proposals submitted by the Unions to the Employer's as of today's date.

Additionally, please provide me with any and all proposals from the Union and or the Employer that the parties have already agreed to.

Quite frankly, as informative and updated as our website as been, I am a bit surprised that Local 5 hasn't already posted this requested information on Local 5's Website by now.

BTW... I am curious as to what "if" any discussions have centered around Retirees. Specifically, what is going to be taking place with Retirees Health Care Benefits? Along those lines, how committed and dedicated are the three (3) UFCW President's (Lind, Loveall & Sharpe) in protecting and preserving Retiree Benefits during these Negotiations?

Looking forward to your response.

Thank You

John Briley
Followed by this e-mail President Lind sent to me dated Thursday, December 8, 2011:
Quote:
Hi John

Thanks for the call the other night. I haven't had time to check but I believe the proposals are up on the web site.
Here is my follow up to President Lind dated Thursday, December 8, 2011:
Quote:
Hello Ron --- thank you for your response. I just checked the website and couldn't locate said proposals. Where would one look?

JB
Needless to say, I am tired of the Bull Shit coming from all three (3) of the Northern Ca. Local Unions, especially from my President @ UFCW Local 5, Ron Lind!!

Additionally, for those of us who were in attendance @ the last Local 5 Town Hall Meeting on Monday, December 5, 2011, President Lind stated that HE would be sending out a letter to all of Local 5 Retirees by the end of the year, updating all Retirees as to how serious these negotiations are and the Employer's current Proposal on the table to ELIMINATE Retiree Health Benefits for current and future Retirees!

Well..... as 2011 was winding down and no Retiree letter from our President as of Friday, December 30, 2011, I sent the following e-mail to President Lind:
Quote:
Hello Ron --- Just checking in on the status of Local 5's / your letter to the Retiree's that you had mentioned during the last Town Hall Meeting. Are you still planning to send one out?

Looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Thank You

Wishing you very Happy New Year.

John Briley
Needless to say, here it is Friday, January 13, 2012 and still haven't received the previously promised letter to the Retirees from our President Ron Lind.
Quote:
JB how do you see this ending (assuming it ever does). But if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, any chance it might not be a duck. I think it's a freakin' duck but then again I'm not there.
Sharyn...... IT'S A FREAKIN' DUCK!!!!
Back to top profile :: pm
John Briley
Post Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 6:34 pm

Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 704
As we pass three (3) months since the UFCW No.Ca. Food Contract(s) expired, let us all take the time to carefully review the following document which clearly details (Raleys/Nob Hill), (Save Mart/Lucky) and (Safeway/Vons) assault on our Active Members and Retirees here in Northern California!

Quote:
Local 8’s / Solidarity Alliance Newsletter
UFCW Solidarity 2011
Northern & Central California Food Negotiations
“Benefits Under Attack”
http://www.ufcw8.org/Docs/UFCW-Solidarity-12-15-11.pdf



It is simply astounding to me that with “Our Benefits Under Attack” , including the “Employer’s Proposals For Rollbacks and Takeaways” that UFCW President’s Ron Lind, Jacques Loveall and Michael Sharpe continue to sit on their “collective asses”, including refusing to take any kind of action and or demonstrate any militancy toward these three (3) Food Employer’s while they try and decimate our Union Contracts!

Clearly the time has come for our Northern Ca. UFCW Leadership, including the I.U., to start applying pressure @ targeted stores throughout Local 5, 8 and 648’s jurisdictions by informing the public what these Food Employer’s are attempting to do!

I am not talking about striking these Employers’s. What I am suggesting is that in conjunction with our on going Negotiations with these Employer’s, additional pressure must be applied by the UFCW by conducting “informational picketing, leafleting, etc…… at targeted stores within our jurisdictions.

The Employer’s would go crazy! What could they do? We are still Negotiating, our Members are still working and our customer’s would be informed of our three (3) Food Employer’s intentions to screw our Active Members & Retirees with their current proposals on the table!!!

Based on the above, I thought that it would be appropriate to examine the various Strike or Lockout Language found in the (Raleys/Nob Hill), (SaveMart/Lucky) and (Safeway/Vons) Contracts for 2007-2011 to determine what “if” any contract language restrictions would prohibit/hinder UFCW Local 5, 8, 648 including the I.U., from engaging in informational picketing/handbilling etc., in front of these employer’s stores.

The following information was taken directly from the following UFCW Local 5 Food and Meat Agreements.

Quote:
UFCW Food and Meat Agreements between UFCW Local 5 and Nob Hill General Store from December 2, 2007 to and including October 11, 2011.

Section 19. Strike Or Lockout (Page 57.)

19.1 During the life of this Agreement, the Union agrees not to engage in any strike or stoppage of work.

19.2 During the life of this Agreement, the Employer agrees not to engage in any lockout.

19.3 Refusal of any employee covered by the terms of this Agreement to pass through any lawful primary picket line which has been sanctioned by the Central Labor Council of proper jurisdiction and/or the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union shall not constitute a violation of this Agreement.



Quote:
UFCW Food and Meat Agreements between UFCW Local 5 and SaveMart Supermarkets from December 2, 2007 to and including October 8, 2011.

Section 20. Strike Or Lockout (Page 43.)

20.1 No Strike: During the life of this Agreement, the Union agrees not to engage in any strike or stoppage of work as long as the Employer has not committed an act held by the Adjustment Board or Arbitrator to be in violation of this Agreement, or the Employer is not in clear violation of a provision of this Agreement where no question of interpretation is involved.

20.2 No Lockout: During the life of this Agreement, the Employer agrees not to engage in any lockout as long as the Union has not committed an act held by the Adjustment Board or Arbitrator to be in violation of this Agreement or the Union is not in clear violation of this Agreement where no question of interpretation is involved.

20.3 No Violation: Refusal of any employee covered by the terms of this Agreement to pass through any picket line which has been sanctioned by the Central Labor Council of proper jurisdiction and/or the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union shall not constitute a violation of this Agreement.



Quote:
UFCW Food and Meat Agreements between UFCW Local 5 and Safeway Food Stores from December 2, 2007 to and including October 6, 2011.

Section 17. Strike Or Lockout (Page 107.)

17.1 (Food and Meat) During the life of the Agreement, the Union agrees not to engage in any stoppage of work. Furthermore, the Union and its representatives, including store representatives, agree not to boycott, handbill, publicly disparage or engage in any adverse economic action against the Employer’s stores covered by this Agreement. This provision does not apply in any of the Employer’s stores where the Union has not been recognized by the Employer as the employees’ bargaining representative.

17.2 (Food) During the life of this Agreement the Employer agrees not to engage in any lockout.

17.3 (Food) Refusal of any Employee covered by the terms of this Agreement to pass through any lawful primary picket line, which has been sanctioned by the Central Labor Council of proper jurisdiction and/or the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union shall not constitute a violation of this Agreement.

17.4 (Meat) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement to the contrary, it shall not be a violation of this Agreement for any person covered by this Agreement to refuse to cross any lawful primary picket line or to refuse to work behind any lawful primary picket line; and such refusal shall not constitute grounds for or cause for discharge, layoff, demotion, suspension, or any other disciplinary action.

17.5 (Meat) There shall be no strikes, lockouts or other forms of work stoppage while any matter, dispute or grievance is under process of adjustment or arbitration as provided for herein.

In conjunction with Section 17 here is the applicable Letter of Understanding between UFCW Local 5 and Safeway (Page 148.):

The Employers agree that Section 17.1 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement does not prevent the Union from assisting the employees covered by the Agreement from filing any state or federal lawsuit which is designed to enforce any state or federal employee protection law or laws. Further, the Employers agree that the Union can be party to such lawsuits. The Employers further agree that Section 17.1 of the Agreement does not prevent the Employees covered by the Agreement does not prevent the Employees covered by the Agreement from personally boycotting and/or hand billing the Employer.



As previously stated here:

UFCW’s “Paper Tiger” Reputation
http://forums.uncharted.ca/viewtopic.php?t=1753&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

UFCW Members here in Northern Ca. continue to be haunted by the UFCW / Safeway, Sec. 17.1 Contract Language negotiated by the Loveall Regime!

After reviewing all three (3) contracts, clearly with the exception of Safeway, the UFCW Local and I.U. Leadership have the contract language to support various types of actions at the other two (2) Employer store locations throughout Northern Ca.

Just imagine “if” UFCW President’s Lind, Loveall & Sharpe would finally grow a “pair” and “thought outside of the box” for a day, a week, a month, maybe, just maybe, the UFCW could have the courage to duplicate the following historic event at targeted (Raleys/Nob Hill), SaveMart/Lucky) stores throughout Northern Ca.

Oakland General Strike & Mass Day Of Action- November 2
http://forums.uncharted.ca/about1778-0-asc-0.html

or.......

is the UFCW more concerned about not damaging their Paper Tiger Reputation?????
Back to top profile :: pm
John Briley
Post Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:37 pm

Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 704
Quote:
It is simply astounding to me that with “Our Benefits Under Attack” , including the “Employer’s Proposals For Rollbacks and Takeaways” that UFCW President’s Ron Lind, Jacques Loveall and Michael Sharpe continue to sit on their “collective asses”, including refusing to take any kind of action and or demonstrate any militancy toward these three (3) Food Employer’s while they try and decimate our Union Contracts!
Could it be..... there appears to be some movement from the three Local Union Presidents????

Here is a recent Local 5 update, dated January 16, 2012...
Quote:
As negotiations heat up Northern California UFCW Locals 5, 8 and 648 met to review the latest and plans to move forward. All three locals have a united and resolute message of solidarity: the message is in unity there is strength. The employer attacks on our health care, wages, working conditions and retirees will not be tolerated. We will not move backward, we will move forward and we will move forward together.

http://www.ufcwonline.com/ufcw-locals-united-in-solidarity
Quote:
The employer attacks on our health care, wages, working conditions and retirees will not be tolerated.
Soooooo President's Lind, Loveall, & Sharpe, what are you going to do about it???

Your Problem is obvious, as a suggestion, the first thing that all three (3) of you need to do is:



Get your heads out of your collective asses and start acting like Labor Leaders!!

Talk is cheap!!

It is time to start kicking some Employer's Asses right now!!!!!
Back to top profile :: pm
SharynS
Post Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:09 am

Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 2939
Location: the 'puter
Quote:
Soooooo President's Lind, Loveall, & Sharpe, what are you going to do about it???
That would be my question as well JB. Months and months of pretty words that rung hollow, aside from hundreds more ufcw members facing hardship, what's changed?

_________________
Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself. - Salman Rushdie
Back to top profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www
John Briley
Post Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:33 pm

Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 704
Quote:
Raleys Inks Contract Extension
Through February 29

Raleys has signed a contract extension that puts them in synch with Safeway and Save Mart who previously signed conract extensions through February 25. These extensions allow company and union representatives to pursue negotiations and attempt to resolve the many issue facing the parties.

Meetings between Locals 5, 8 and 648 are set to resume January 23.

Local 5 Negotiation Update #12:
http://ufcw5.org/PDF%20Files/EnegotiationsUpdate12PDF.pdf

Local 5 Negotiation Update #13:
http://ufcw5.org/PDF%20Files/ENegotiationsUpdate13PDF.pdf
Here is something that I found to be quite interesting in a portion of Local 5's Update #13:
Quote:
The week of January 9 the parties met and some of the employer's indicated that they are contemplating backing away from their demand to completely eliminate retiree medical benefits. While this could be viewed as progress, the companies and the unions remain far apart on all substantive issues, including retiree medical and no proposals has been agreed to so far.
Let's break this one down....

"Some of the Employer's" indicated that they are "contemplating" backing away from their demand to completely eliminate retiree medical benefits?????

With only three (3) Employer's in the mix, (Raleys/Nob Hill), (Save Mart/Lucky) and (Safeway/Vons) which Employer is "allegedly"
"comtemplating" backing away from their demand to completely eliminate retiree medical benefits?????

Is it 2 out of the 3 Employer's who feel that way?????

Is it only 1 employer who feels that way?????

Come on Local 5....... How difficult is it to identify which Employer(s) is "allegedly" taking this position?????

Quit Bull Shitting Us!!!!!

Until such time that the Employer's confirm in writing that they are backing away from their demand to eliminate retiree medical benefits this issue will not be resolved!!!!!
Back to top profile :: pm
Home arrow Forums arrow Your Union arrow The 2011 NorCal Grocery Contract
Page 5 of 17
page: prev  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 15, 16, 17  next
Display posts from previous:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group