Members for Democracy Archive

Disenfranchised UFCW Members asked to pay and have no say

The UFCW International began scooping $2.00 per member, per week from local coffers, continent wide, in the fall of 2002.

The Special Safeway Strike Fund. (The Fund established by the International Union specifically for fights with Safeway. This Fund is financed by a $2.00 per member per week assessment on all Safeway members in North America.)

In the early fall of 2002 UFCW International also introduced a new "Picket Pay Policy" which would increase strike pay to a minimum $100 per week (20 hrs picket duty). The increased compensation would kick in the second week of any dispute. Approximately the same time, a proposal by UFCW Local 1518, for a special dues assessment to fund a possible strike with the two B.C. employers was voted down by the members. Some demanded that the National and International offices dig into their treasuries to help the workers if a strike occurs.

While the money is still flowing out of the Local coffers to the International to help fund what appears to be an imaginary battle with Safeway, UFCW Local 1518 is asking it's retail members to change their minds and approve an assessment. The proposed "temporary dues assessment" is the last piece of the brand new Picket Pay Policy puzzle says Local 1518; "Local 1518 President Brooke Sundin and Secretary Treasurer Ivan Limpright have been putting the final details in place to upgrade the Local Union's Picket Pay Policy. It is now time for members to vote on the Temporary Dues Increase that is the final piece of the new policy".

While UFCW Canada big shots and little shots jet off to their International convention in San Fransisco in July of 2003, thousands of members of UFCW Local 1518 are facing a labour dispute in which the deck is stacked against them in multiple layers.

Contract talks between the Local and retail food industry heavies, Save-On Foods and Safeway, have stalled. On the street and on the Local's official web site there is talk of a possible strike. British Columbia is a key market for both employers and a walk out by approximately 15,000 retail members province-wide local could put considerable pressure on the companies to settle on terms that are favourable to the union. That's not likely to happen however, because only one half of the bargaining unit is permitted to strike.

Under an agreement negotiated in the 1997 round of bargaining, the union is required to divide the bargaining unit into two zones only one of which can strike. The Local decides on which zone will be the "zone that can strike" and must notify the employers of this, within one (1) year but not less than six (6) months, in advance of the expiry of the contract. Workers in the "zone that can't strike" must continue working while a strike is in progress and must accept (without the opportunity to vote on it) whatever settlement is ratified by the members in the "strike" zone.

With half the bargaining unit prohibited from striking and the employers free to continue operating without fear of job action in roughly half their stores, the power of the remaining members is greatly diminished. But it gets even worse.

Members were recently advised that the Local intends to change its picket pay policy. Members will be asked to approve a proposal that will impose a dues hike of 10% on members in the "no strike" zone which would take effect on the first day of a strike. The workers - who are subject to a two tier wage scale negotiated in 1997 - earn anywhere from $8 to $10 an hour. That deal also resulted in a massive increase in UFCW 1518 membership as well as a corresponding increase in union revenue related to dues and initiation fees, a veritable windfall, given the transient nature of poverty level jobs.

Division of member interests appears to be the only UFCW strategy thus far. What remains to be seen is exactly who, besides the union elite and the employers, will benefit. What could have been a single and unified workforce in a highly profitable business, workers are now wondering why they should pay a piper that has refused to call their tune.

So while UFCW leaders and thousand of delegates jet off to a lavish convention on the members' nickel, the members face a dues hike to fund a strike in which they cannot participate in. Solidarity forever.

In the zones.

I have to wonder where all the money went from the part-time cattle drive. UFCW has clearly swollen its ranks at a very dear cost to the members themselves. This is quite simply a clear conflict between representing the membership it had in favour of courting members it wanted. If 1518 wants even more money from the members, a good place to start would be an accounting of where that money went over the last decade. UFCW 1518 would make the statement that it costs the same to represent a part-time members as it does for a full-time member.

But that is simply more flatulence from the 1518 trough pigs. Full-time members not only know their rights but more often defend them. Afterall, they have something worth defending - a real job. On the other hand, part-time members often don't know and don't care for the obvious reason that there is little motivation to invest personl energy in a job that their own union has described as having no future, a job that is fit to save for school or go travelling - a McJob.

Divide and conquer seems to be a strategy for 1518 because the full-time contingent is angry and wise to the need for leadership change. They look at 1518 membership in a simple electoral demographic context - who is likely to vote for and maintain my position? Seen in this light, part-time membership is a friendly demographic and must be increased. If this doesn't look promising, there is always a merger to engineer. Anything but a change in leadership is acceptable.

Certainly the present leadership has worked well for the employers. Brooke spoke in glowing terms about Pattison, gave him the "zones", gave him the warehouse members on a platter, gave him just about anything he asked for. Why? 1518 laughed all the way to the bank and the next convention. Do you ever notice that Brooke and Ivan never talk about their record of achievement?

I would respond with a no vote on this one for several reasons. Firstly, there is the appalling record that has been Brooke's legacy since he arrived as a trustee in 1988 - what has improved since that date? Secondly, before these trough pigs have the gall to ask for more money,they should make a factual arguement first as to financial need. Those who have tried to find out where their money went know this very well. Again the union hides behind a veil of rhetoric. Constitution, union by-laws, confidentiality, blah blah blah. Translation - we don't want you to know how we spend your money.

It comes down to this: you are allowed to look - only look - at the union's own accounting figures once at every GMM. Try and get more than that - see how far you get. Members know more about Safeway's accounting than they do about their own money!!!

Where did all the money go from the last 15 years of selling out the membership? Those are facts that 1518 don't want to the membership to see. SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!

First things first; Correction: In the interest of accuracy it has been brought to my attention that it was ufcw locals which decided the $2 per members.

Where the dues money actually is, is still up in the air tho, it is either in the locals defense fund or it has been submitted to an international fund.

Where the money is located or who made the decision to scoop it, doesn't change the fact that since the fall of 2002 the $2 per member per week has been vaulted up nice and safe (we hope) for the retail battle, millions of it

quote:

---

The Rank and File must now come forth and ask questions as to what exactly is going on in your union, what is your dues exactly paying for..have you people ever questioned?

---

Today some did. Most of us came away from our little brush with representation with the understanding that if the proposed 1518 dues assessment is rejected (again), "the minimum $100 per wk, becomes the maximum". The picket pay policy adopted by the international will not be adopted by the local should the members vote against the assessment.

It wasn't made clear what exactly that meant, because the explanation veered off into a little game of musical words, which played to the room, "you say minimum , I say maximum"

The policy proposed by 1518 included a list of seven things, the 1518 assessment being the final piece. So one could assume if the min becomes the max, then the 1518 coffers are empty and only the international policy will support a dispute.

Or does it mean that all things on the 1518 list only add up to $100 max without the new assessment? Or does it mean another screw is being tightened on an already frightened membership?

When asked if the extravagant untimely International convention will be cancelled in July and the money used toward the battle, the answer was that it was a political decision out of the reps control and the rep had no answer.

The asst'ing rep pointed out that conventions are where all the important work is done. For instance she said, "the stewards conference is where all the proposals were ratified".

Worth their weight in dues, these are the words of an angry member regarding the assessment; "I'm not giving my money to any middle man. If Safeway workers strike, I will buy them groceries myself, babysit for them and do whatever I can to help."

Been awhile sinse we had a tussle, so let me step up and drop a big old bomb on this article, and more specifically, your positions.

I think you are being shortsighted. This fight, these contract talks may well be the most important you have ever been engaged in. If 1518 is ready to take on these bad boys, then they need your support.

From the stuff i have read on this site, there are all kinds of serious issues that need to be cleaned up. Lets start with the few things i see as a problem:
1). Has the local defined an objective of these talks as eliminating this lunacy of striking zones? That end is worth a protracted strike off unto itself.
2). Is there a commitment to having a short contract? Two, maybe three years. I've watched the Canadian locals violate the international policy on contract length, and been stunned someone hasn't hauled their ashes over it. There is little more devastating to workers then long 5 to 10 year agreeements.
3). Has the local set an agenda for more real full time jobs and doing away with the two tiered system? Again, an issue i would support 100% as a member, and i'd easily cough up ten percent.

Which moves me to the next item in your post. What does all this mean in terms of dollars. I used to like to use percentages when i wanted to baffle the membership. Let's see what this increase does. After all, most workers can't afford to go out on strike for a long period of time, unless strike benefits pay me enough to survive.

Somebody do the math. What are your dues in Canada. If they are $40 dollars a month, is that a $4 increase. How many members would be out, and what would it generate? Will the dollars coming in support my brothers and sisters so they can stay out indefinately? It is imperative for the workers who will be asked to strike to know what they will have to get by on.

When is all this to happen. The international convention is coming. Is the goal to be out before, after or during. Will you be taking the increase before workers vote or go? Will it happen once they are out? How soon will you begin paying folks the higher strike benefits once they go? The international's $100 kicks in the second week, what happens the first?

See, the strategy and the threat of a strike is as important as the strike itself. The other problem is, as the expiration date of the contract slips further and further past, the workers/members become more apathetic, almost resolving themselves to the end game of a shitty agreement.

If this dues increase is intended to light a fire, to fuel the members who can strike to a fevered pitch, then i would be supporting it 100%. It's the battle of a lifetime, and it will only be won when the members and the leaders are willing to put up and show the employers they are serious. The changes that are needed will be a challenge to achieve. With the collective power of the union, and if the commitment and communication is there to force the employer to deal with these issues, i would be behind my leadership and screaming, whatever it takes.

quote:

---

Been awhile sinse we had a tussle, so let me step up and drop a big old bomb on this article, and more specifically, your positions.

---

Check your Prez retirement survival kit BP, I'm not sure but you may have been scooped on your bomb pkg., did you purchase the ufcw kit?

Short sighted? Point well taken, it's a good idea to put it all in prespective, at least that which we know.

Will 1518 members support the good fight, they're poised. Members are asking employers for their "fair share", not unreasonable nor unattainable, we are 15,000 retail strong.

How all this breaks down is somewhat of a guessing game;

Overwaitea foods has approx. 26 Save-ons in the designated strike zone 1. About 40 stores in zone 2 (not counting the Smart Shops, urban fare, Coopers etc. which spot the ofg landscape)

Safeways' numbers are more difficult to come up with. They have about 75 stores B.C wide. It would seem that, where there is a Save-on there is a Safeway, in many locations that is true but Safeways' retails have a greater concentration in zone 1.

A protracted strike against B.C Safeway has the potential to get the results 1518 members have been asking and more then prepared to fight for *our fair share*. (tho made extemely more difficult with the zone_age, it is still plausible, if like you say BP, the strike strategy is in place and on the ready).

The employer who is struck is potentially facing a loss two fold, right, immediate profit disruption in struck stores, and future losses when customer loyalty walks to the competiton. Both good effective strike tools.

The dues assessment, if accepted, would be slated to take effect the first day of any job action. We do know the International's support will kick in the second week of any dispute and we can safely assume with the Local Picket Pay Policy in place, the members income will not have to skip a beat.

A breakout of the dues assessment would have zone 1 + 2 ofg and zone 2 safeway working and contributing 10% of their wages to the safeway zone 1 striking workers.

The local places the F/T - P/T break at 40/60, but in the stores it looks more like 25/75, so in the interest of hypothetical, lets cut that baby almost in half and say the fulltime/parttime break is 35/65. The proposed assessment of 10% of gross hourly wage would wash out approx. $350,000 f/t and $275,000 p/t per wk. in assessments ($650,000 high $500,000 low per wk). Which would average out about $164.00 a wk into the fund per striking member, per wk.

The defense strategy will also include $100 per wk, per member, from the International. Unspecified monetary support from the National and B.C Fed affiliates. Without question other ufcw locals will reciprocate 1518's past dispute support. (1518 kicked in $1000 a wk to the ufcw 175/safeway dispute). Factor in an untouched 1518 fund of much more then $1 mil, which hasn't been disturbed since '96.

The strike pay policy , if accepted, will pay 50% of a members 13 wk hrly average prior to a dispute, minimum pay is $100 and maximum $400.00. If the worker's dispute participation is 100% and maximum strike pay, not realistic, the $ out would be approx. $710,000 per wk.).

The proposed ufcw Picket Pay Policy (assessment) would easily support 1/4 of the locals retail members in perpetuity while the other 3/4's of the retail members hold down the fort. (ofg zone 1+2 and safeway zone 2 work, zone 1 safeway strike)

The local has also announced a medical support program, which reimburses members for unusual medical costs, normally covered under employer paid medical plans. P/T members not currently covered will be under unions' medical assistance program during the dispute.

An immediate protracted strike against an employer, in the zone which represents the major portion of it's B.C market share could have significant positive impact on the end result. When will this happen? The membership is ready and waiting.

Realistically all things considered, all members could be facing a reduction of roughly 10% of their normal income, striking or working, Safeway or OFG. But with the policy in place, working members face the 10% reduction of income and striking workers will take the 50% cut of normal income. Not an easy task to cut back from $10 an hr. to $9 (10%) an hr. and even more difficult to go from $10 an hr to $5 (50%), which can only be alleviated by taking on a mcjob while the dispute is in your neighborhood. Yet another daunting task.

Part-timers who remain working, 20 hrs at $10 an hour would be looking at a temporay reduction of income of $80 per month. (The variables are the part timers, some who work 32 - 40 hrs at $10 of course would be looking at $120 - $160 per month reduction) Full time workers would be taking home approx $320 per month less.

A 72 hr perishable notice is all that separates zone 1 safeway workers from job action, against an employer which has dragged talks for 5 months with no significant change in their position, unless you take into account the concessionary add-ons since negotiations began.

When all is said and done, what is on the table (strike issue) is removal of the two-tier language (jr clerk and clerk II's) negotiated in '96, fair wage increases (undefined), retention/strengthning of some seniority language.

What's not on the table is the *two-zone* bargaining language nor has any contract length been clearly communicated. The negotiating teams are currently battling a 10 yr proposal by the employers and the overall understanding is another 5 yr agreement.

Tho members haven't been formally notified, the timing of the vote for an assessment surely signals a swift response to the employers drag at the negotiation table or not? Members don't know.

Then what purpose would a late date dues assessment serve? Wouldn't anyone familiar with labour disputes recognize the futility of striking half an employer?

Can somebody write a brief layman's guide to the issues and probable outcomes that will be addressed at the convention?

I mean for the person who has no clue about all the local politics and is new to unions and considering the UFCW.

I would like to ask if it would be possible for members to challenge this "zone" arrangement? It would seem to me that if a union signs a deal that deprives its members (or about half of them at least) of certain statutory rights that they achieve by joining a union - rights like the right to bargain collectively, the right to strike, the right to ratify a collective agreement - then there's something quite wrong with this picture.

Local 1518 members (those in the strike and no-strike zones) might want to consider asking their union leaders to tear up this agreement so that they can exercise their collective power (which is what joining a union is supposed to give workers the right to do). I'm not kidding. This zone thing is the biggest piece of disempowering shit I've heard of in a long time.

Why not file a lawsuit or injuction to "prevent" this 2 zone non-sense, equal protection for all members.