Hope you don't need anything at Stop & Shop

Bt74

NES Member
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
3,165
Likes
1,507
Location
NH
This is the big problem I always have with what I call trash grade unions... I still, to this day, don't understand what shitting on the customer is going to accomplish. You would think they would be handing out ice cream cones or something and handing out flyers. Joe or Jane average doesn't understand the union bullshit (and why should they, it's not their fight) and trying to ram it down their throat in that way probably isn't the best way to curry support......

-Mike
34 year Union member......and I fully agree with you. Much like the Ironworkers Union blocking traffic on I93 about 10 years ago.
 

Bt74

NES Member
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
3,165
Likes
1,507
Location
NH
So you're cutting in on the Locksmith Union?
A qualified carpenter should be able to install ANY hardware that goes on the door, and many are also certified welders, so if the jambs require welding to structural, we do it all. How many non union carpenters have current welding certs? About 10% of union carpenters do. Costs a lot to get certified, not many contractors will foot the bill.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
7,942
Likes
3,075
Location
A Fair Haven in an unfair state.
Basically, the stores essentially closed for almost 2 weeks, lost god knows how much in sales, and it was all for nothing because they gave the union everything they wanted... Did I actually see that prior posters here recommended investing in this company? Are you effing nuts? If management wanted to roll over for the union they should have never let it come to a strike. All they did was cost themselves more money resulting from the work stoppage.

For whatever it's worth IMHO, if they had held out another week or so they would have started seeing concessions from the union rolling in. Once not getting a paycheck started to really sting for the folks who walked off the job, there would be mounting pressure to get something done. Unlike the parent company, the workers didn't have the capital to ride it out... And because S&S pays more, and provides better benefits than any other job anyone with an 8th-grade education can do, the striking workers would have few options.

I honestly don't know how they could have done a worse job... If I'm the CEO I'm looking for heads to roll.

But hey, looking forward to that higher grocery bill so the dude working the gas kiosk can play angry birds on his phone and earn a pension while I fill up and pump my own gas.
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
2,352
Likes
634
Location
Mass
34 year Union member......and I fully agree with you. Much like the Ironworkers Union blocking traffic on I93 about 10 years ago.

I have been in longer than that and have never heard of this, do you have a link?

It wasn't you who argued that unions were good for the public, it was someone else. I will argue that union's promise of higher wages is a net negative to the consumer and a direct cause of inflation. I'm glad we're on the same page here, that unions only benefit themselves, and in many cases, unions only benefit the leadership. You are keeping others from learning the trade by trying to keep a monopoly on your vertical. Ever been non union and tried to work anywhere near a union vertical? Those people will act like you're taking bread out of their baby's mouth if they perceive you as violating their golden anus of control.

I guess from the inside you can't really see what a scam it is, but to anyone on the outside can easily see the long history of corruption and damage it's done to our country.
So your position, if I understand this right, is that we are somehow doing something wrong by teaching the trade to our apprentices and putting out highly qualified workers. But not providing that same training to others who do not pay into the system?

As to your point of being a net negative if that was true we wouldn't exist. We only get work that the company bids out with our cost in mind. So that company winning the bid and being able to make money seems to indicate that we are doing the job either faster, more efficiently, or better somehow than the non union guys.

I don't really understand the way you use the word vertical here, but generally what I see when the two interact is non union guys bitching that we are getting paid more and acting as if they are somehow better for doing the work for less money. I'm not going to bash them for doing their job, but I'm sure that some others might. There are a**h***s in every group, what are you going to do?
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
8,346
Likes
3,699
Location
Braintree, MA
I have been in longer than that and have never heard of this, do you have a link?



So your position, if I understand this right, is that we are somehow doing something wrong by teaching the trade to our apprentices and putting out highly qualified workers. But not providing that same training to others who do not pay into the system?

As to your point of being a net negative if that was true we wouldn't exist. We only get work that the company bids out with our cost in mind. So that company winning the bid and being able to make money seems to indicate that we are doing the job either faster, more efficiently, or better somehow than the non union guys.

I don't really understand the way you use the word vertical here, but generally what I see when the two interact is non union guys bitching that we are getting paid more and acting as if they are somehow better for doing the work for less money. I'm not going to bash them for doing their job, but I'm sure that some others might. There are a**h***s in every group, what are you going to do?

No, you don't understand my position. What unions do that is so unethical is using government favor and coercion to secure control over a given business. What's unethical is claiming that you have better training than anyone else, yet keep an artificially low labor supply to push up costs. Would your company win any bids if they had to compete in the open market? Or do union thugs, politicians, and straight gangsters control what companies can and can't bid.

It's a big extortion racket. The owner of the company has no legal recourse to stop unionization, to stop a strike. Union workers will harass people crossing the picket line. Major crime families IN BOSTON are using these tactics to fund their activities. Honest hard working businessmen have their livelyhood taken from them

all for a collective ideal that purports to put the needs the many ahead of the needs of the few, when in actuality often only benefiting the upper echelons. There's another group that wants to make everyone the same, paid the same, that wants to use 'management' to make everything 'fair' by taking away business owners' right to freely choose. they actively attack those who disagree. they hold businesses hostage, and when confronted show their true colors. sound familiar?

I'm not bitching that you make more money than the average in your trade. I'm bitching that by paying dues you're funding the same people who wish to destroy this country. for what? you're paying protection money to what is essentially a crime family. your job gets protected and your cronies use force to help keep your hold on the market

unions helped destroy detroit. this is what collectivism gets you.

its ok though, your shortsightedness and greed is only fueling automation.
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
2,352
Likes
634
Location
Mass
No, you don't understand my position. What unions do that is so unethical is using government favor and coercion to secure control over a given business. What's unethical is claiming that you have better training than anyone else, yet keep an artificially low labor supply to push up costs. Would your company win any bids if they had to compete in the open market? Or do union thugs, politicians, and straight gangsters control what companies can and can't bid.

It's a big extortion racket. The owner of the company has no legal recourse to stop unionization, to stop a strike. Union workers will harass people crossing the picket line. Major crime families IN BOSTON are using these tactics to fund their activities. Honest hard working businessmen have their livelyhood taken from them

all for a collective ideal that purports to put the needs the many ahead of the needs of the few, when in actuality often only benefiting the upper echelons. There's another group that wants to make everyone the same, paid the same, that wants to use 'management' to make everything 'fair' by taking away business owners' right to freely choose. they actively attack those who disagree. they hold businesses hostage, and when confronted show their true colors. sound familiar?

I'm not bitching that you make more money than the average in your trade. I'm bitching that by paying dues you're funding the same people who wish to destroy this country. for what? you're paying protection money to what is essentially a crime family. your job gets protected and your cronies use force to help keep your hold on the market

unions helped destroy detroit. this is what collectivism gets you.

its ok though, your shortsightedness and greed is only fueling automation.
OK, my bad I thought you wanted to discuss reality. I get it, unions bad and all unions are the same regardless of the huge differences between the type of union that destroyed the auto industry and trade unions.

Our training is better, period, and there really is no disputing that. Non union shops generally don't train anyone in a structured way. Overall it seems unproductive to argue with you, since you don't have any actual knowledge of the subject matter and are mixing and matching your issues.

Sure, unions donate money to politicians that want to take my guns, I am not a fan of that but am stuck in that regard. Sure in the 50's unions had mob ties and things were a lot more shady. Sure in years past (50+ years ago) trade unions would use violence and intimidation to get their way. These things are not good, but we live in an imperfect world.

If you want to continue this maybe you should take some time to get your facts straight about how different unions work. Single company unions like the ones that represent stop and shop or verizon are cancer, they ruin the companies and you are right that once they chose to unionize you have no recourse. Public sector unions are also terrible and cause huge problems because they are negotiating with someone who has the power to sign contracts, but is not the one paying the actual price (That price is borne by taxpayers who get no say). But to act like that represents all unions is just ignoring basic reality.

You can hate unions if you want, you clearly do. But you make yourself look foolish when you can't differentiate between things that are not at all the same. If you worked at an office supply shop and I said everyone working in the private sector, including you, is bad because google and amazon are running monopolies that attempt to censor speech they don't like on the internet I would quickly be called out for generalizing so broadly. It's the same situation here, you just refuse to see it.
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
914
Likes
561
Location
Marstons Mills
OK, my bad I thought you wanted to discuss reality. I get it, unions bad and all unions are the same regardless of the huge differences between the type of union that destroyed the auto industry and trade unions.

Our training is better, period, and there really is no disputing that. Non union shops generally don't train anyone in a structured way. Overall it seems unproductive to argue with you, since you don't have any actual knowledge of the subject matter and are mixing and matching your issues.

Sure, unions donate money to politicians that want to take my guns, I am not a fan of that but am stuck in that regard. Sure in the 50's unions had mob ties and things were a lot more shady. Sure in years past (50+ years ago) trade unions would use violence and intimidation to get their way. These things are not good, but we live in an imperfect world.

If you want to continue this maybe you should take some time to get your facts straight about how different unions work. Single company unions like the ones that represent stop and shop or verizon are cancer, they ruin the companies and you are right that once they chose to unionize you have no recourse. Public sector unions are also terrible and cause huge problems because they are negotiating with someone who has the power to sign contracts, but is not the one paying the actual price (That price is borne by taxpayers who get no say). But to act like that represents all unions is just ignoring basic reality.

You can hate unions if you want, you clearly do. But you make yourself look foolish when you can't differentiate between things that are not at all the same. If you worked at an office supply shop and I said everyone working in the private sector, including you, is bad because google and amazon are running monopolies that attempt to censor speech they don't like on the internet I would quickly be called out for generalizing so broadly. It's the same situation here, you just refuse to see it.
This is not correct. Every contract negotiations that I have ever seen (public sector) is between the union and elected officials who must as a condition of their eligibility must live in the jurisdiction. Sure I guess they could just be renting a place but typically they are older, often retired, residents who are established in the community and own property that they are paying taxes on.
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
2,352
Likes
634
Location
Mass
This is not correct. Every contract negotiations that I have ever seen (public sector) is between the union and elected officials who must as a condition of their eligibility must live in the jurisdiction. Sure I guess they could just be renting a place but typically they are older, often retired, residents who are established in the community and own property that they are paying taxes on.
Right but not exactly my point. My issue stems from the idea that they don't have to worry about putting the money out of their own pocket directly like a company owner would, or worry about being competitive in the small scale. The teachers want a 10% raise this year, the guy signing the contract is not looking at a yearly balance sheet and thinking about how it affects the bottom line, he is looking at a yearly budget and figuring how to add a tax to pay for it.
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
8,346
Likes
3,699
Location
Braintree, MA
OK, my bad I thought you wanted to discuss reality. I get it, unions bad and all unions are the same regardless of the huge differences between the type of union that destroyed the auto industry and trade unions.

Our training is better, period, and there really is no disputing that. Non union shops generally don't train anyone in a structured way. Overall it seems unproductive to argue with you, since you don't have any actual knowledge of the subject matter and are mixing and matching your issues.

Sure, unions donate money to politicians that want to take my guns, I am not a fan of that but am stuck in that regard. Sure in the 50's unions had mob ties and things were a lot more shady. Sure in years past (50+ years ago) trade unions would use violence and intimidation to get their way. These things are not good, but we live in an imperfect world.

If you want to continue this maybe you should take some time to get your facts straight about how different unions work. Single company unions like the ones that represent stop and shop or verizon are cancer, they ruin the companies and you are right that once they chose to unionize you have no recourse. Public sector unions are also terrible and cause huge problems because they are negotiating with someone who has the power to sign contracts, but is not the one paying the actual price (That price is borne by taxpayers who get no say). But to act like that represents all unions is just ignoring basic reality.

You can hate unions if you want, you clearly do. But you make yourself look foolish when you can't differentiate between things that are not at all the same. If you worked at an office supply shop and I said everyone working in the private sector, including you, is bad because google and amazon are running monopolies that attempt to censor speech they don't like on the internet I would quickly be called out for generalizing so broadly. It's the same situation here, you just refuse to see it.
Yeah, ok, your union is different. I believe you. Unions take away the business owner's right to choose. I don't care what kind of union you are, you're still complicit to your own benefit. You've put your own financial gain ahead of freedom. Your bias is really laughable.

BTW read back a couple of pages to the 10 or so cases of corruption that I found in the last 2 years.



Right but not exactly my point. My issue stems from the idea that they don't have to worry about putting the money out of their own pocket directly like a company owner would, or worry about being competitive in the small scale. The teachers want a 10% raise this year, the guy signing the contract is not looking at a yearly balance sheet and thinking about how it affects the bottom line, he is looking at a yearly budget and figuring how to add a tax to pay for it.

Just because you can point your finger at another union who is MORE CORRUPT doesn't make yours any less so. What private unions don't extort from taxpayers they take from inflation, the costs always get passed down to the end user anyways.

Don't you think it would be fair to take away the protections the government has afforded you but not everyone else?
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
2,352
Likes
634
Location
Mass
Yeah, ok, your union is different. I believe you. Unions take away the business owner's right to choose. I don't care what kind of union you are, you're still complicit to your own benefit. You've put your own financial gain ahead of freedom. Your bias is really laughable.

BTW read back a couple of pages to the 10 or so cases of corruption that I found in the last 2 years.






Just because you can point your finger at another union who is MORE CORRUPT doesn't make yours any less so. What private unions don't extort from taxpayers they take from inflation, the costs always get passed down to the end user anyways.

Don't you think it would be fair to take away the protections the government has afforded you but not everyone else?
Protections, you mean contract law and the ability of a group of people to enter into contracts with willing participants? You can complain about a business owner's right to choose except you ignore their right to choose if they want to enter into a contract with us. We extort nothing from taxpayers and how you figure inflation is the fault of unions is beyond me. Your nonsense about freedom and public good are just that, nonsense. I don't see you talking about how much public good you do by taking less pay and benefits than you managed to negotiate from your employer.

Simple concept, we bargain with employers and have a contract. They bid, openly and fairly against union and non union shops for jobs knowing in advance that we cost more. They are not forced to contract with us, I don't work for any single company longer than they need me for a job. You act as if we somehow make these companies hire us, and that we somehow cheat to get the jobs but with no proof. Can you point me to a company that hires union labor from a trade union and is somehow forced to do so by the heavy hand of government?
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
8,346
Likes
3,699
Location
Braintree, MA
Protections, you mean contract law and the ability of a group of people to enter into contracts with willing participants? You can complain about a business owner's right to choose except you ignore their right to choose if they want to enter into a contract with us. We extort nothing from taxpayers and how you figure inflation is the fault of unions is beyond me. Your nonsense about freedom and public good are just that, nonsense. I don't see you talking about how much public good you do by taking less pay and benefits than you managed to negotiate from your employer.

Simple concept, we bargain with employers and have a contract. They bid, openly and fairly against union and non union shops for jobs knowing in advance that we cost more. They are not forced to contract with us, I don't work for any single company longer than they need me for a job. You act as if we somehow make these companies hire us, and that we somehow cheat to get the jobs but with no proof. Can you point me to a company that hires union labor from a trade union and is somehow forced to do so by the heavy hand of government?
Do business owners really get to choose though, or can a union be sprung on them in an instant and the only way to stop it is to scuttle the company?

And to answer your second question, read #682 and 683. Plenty of business owners have to hire from the union pool for many different reasons.

Just for fun, here's a quote from the UAW's website, a prominent TRADE UNION that arguably single handedly destroyed our auto and steel industries

No Union = No Rights
What is the difference between:
If your workplace is non-union…
  • You are an “employee at will.” Your employer can discipline or fire you at any time for any reason; you have no recourse.
  • “Open door” policy means the employer will listen to you… and then do whatever he or she wants.
  • Employer determines wages, benefits and other terms and conditions of work. If you’re not satisfied, your only option is to get another job.
  • Wages, benefits and other terms and conditions can be changed by the employer at any time.
  • Hiring and promotion is up to the discretion of the employer.
Scary huh?
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
8,346
Likes
3,699
Location
Braintree, MA
The great union loophole - CommonWealth Magazine

NEWLY SEATED SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
Neil Gorsuch once wrote, “There is something distinct, different, and more problematic afoot when the government selectively infringes on a fundamental right.”

The Massachusetts union loophole, upheld last week in Superior Court, does just that.
The union loophole allows unions to contribute up to $15,000 to state candidates, while limiting individuals to $1,000 and preventing employers from contributing anything at all. The loophole exists as a result of an interpretation by a state bureaucrat in 1988 and has been exploited again and again, with some candidates raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars from unions.

For example, in 2015, Boston Mayor Martin Walsh collected over $500,000 from over 100 unions through the union loophole. Many of those unions were outside of Massachusetts.
Yeah, no special protections here
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
2,352
Likes
634
Location
Mass
Do business owners really get to choose though, or can a union be sprung on them in an instant and the only way to stop it is to scuttle the company?

And to answer your second question, read #682 and 683. Plenty of business owners have to hire from the union pool for many different reasons.

Just for fun, here's a quote from the UAW's website, a prominent TRADE UNION that arguably single handedly destroyed our auto and steel industries



Scary huh?

Cool story bro, though you got me on use of terms they are a trade union but not a labor union that provides a skilled workforce for contractors. they are instead functionally single company unions. Otherwise your points make no sense. Like I said, pointless to argue with someone who refuses to educate themselves and simply hates unions.
 
Last edited:

AHM

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
5,844
Likes
2,990
Back in the day there was a California supermarket strike.

A correspondent's brother drove precisely the same dark green Lincoln SUV
the Migras were using. And he knew it.

There was a supermarket with pickets ... He whipped in to the parking lot.
... half the picketers were illegals, and they thought it was a bust...

A feller could bankroll a pretty good weekend in Vegas
with this scheme.
 

Spanz

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 25, 2009
Messages
31,710
Likes
17,838
grabbed a few things at S&S today. Place was empty, like a ghost town.
they gave me a $5 off the next $25 spent...it guess to induce customers to come back.
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
8,346
Likes
3,699
Location
Braintree, MA
Cool story bro, though you got me on use of terms they are a trade union but not a labor union that provides a skilled workforce for contractors. they are instead functionally single company unions. Otherwise your points make no sense. Like I said, pointless to argue with someone who refuses to educate themselves and simply hates unions.
Yeah. You're right. There is no longer any skill in the American Autoworkers pool. The UAW saw to that, didn't they?

'go educate yourself' you sound like one of those ptsd otherkin blue-haired progressives.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 30, 2012
Messages
1,600
Likes
505
S&S did get a win here. When MA passed the new wage act to increase minimum wage this past summer, a big part of it was the Sunday 1.5x pay issue. This is a leftover from the Blue Laws (for you younguns, until the 80s, here in MA stores were required to be closed on Sundays). When shopping began on Sunday, because it was a holy day, a day or rest, etc., the lawmakers agreed that if you had to work on Sunday, you got 1.5x your pay. Fast forward to now, and we are only 1 of 3 states left that has this. The retail association wants this gone of course.

Since 75% of SS workers are part time, and eligible for this 1.5x pay. But only the current workers. Not new hires. The part timers have a very large turnover. There is a good chance 3 years from now, most of the part time staff is 'new' and doesn't get the 1.5x pay.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
3,316
Likes
1,192
Location
Rt.3, 1/2 way between Boston and the Cape
He was a SUPERVISOR NOT UNION. Read before you post.
Seriously, you're trying to talk shit about someone's inability to read posts? Perhaps you neglected to read the post where I said I was previously in a union.


People get disciplined all the time where I work. It's called failure to follow. The union can only save so many times. Yes there are people like that who are truly unemployable.

And about the coercion thing? I could care whatever gets me more money in the long run. All you people on your moral high horse. You mean to tell me if you could make your boss give you a raise every year no matter what you wouldn't? Haha you wanna sell me a bridge too?

I think millbilly said it best you guys hate us because you ain't us.
Here, let me help you out with the meaning of coercion.

Coercion.jpg

So basically you union guys are a bunch of lunch money bullies and are proud of that, so long as someone else does the actual stick up for you that is. Exactly how is it any different than someone sticking the barrel of a gun in one of your loved ones mouth and taking from/doing anything they feel like to them?

I don't hate you or any other union member here per se(I don't know any of you IRL), I just HATE everything you all represent. IMO you're all nothing but petulant 5yr old's that, when they don't get what they want exactly when they want it, stomp your feet and throw a temper tantrum until you get your way.

Amusingly enough the scene from God Bless America just popped into my head where Chloe gets the wrong car for her birthday and has a meltdown. Now normal folks(read non-union) I imagine would be jazzed to get a free car but the union folks(being Chloe) aren't ever happy until their specific demands are acquiesced to.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 17, 2019
Messages
510
Likes
602
Location
Over the Hills and Far Away
There is a story on Masslive about how this strike cost S&S around $100 million. I fail to see how that is going to help anybody. While S&S tries to recover (if they ever can) they are obviously going to need to cut costs. And they will do it through layoff's, cutting employee's hours, reduced benefits and all the other things that will inevitably lead to another strike. Good luck to S&S and their employees.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
69,153
Likes
28,165
Protections, you mean contract law and the ability of a group of people to enter into contracts with willing participants? You can complain about a business owner's right to choose except you ignore their right to choose if they want to enter into a contract with us.

We extort nothing from taxpayers and how you figure inflation is the fault of unions is beyond me.
Well, there's an argument that unions end up making the product cost more than it would in an actual open market. Unions essentially are allowed to create labor
monopolies. Then on top of that, in non right to work states, the government provides additional protections for these labor monopolies. Then theres a factor of corruption and coercion in some, but not necessarily all unions. EG- the adage that "you will never build this building unless you use union labor" is often true in more ways
than one, often far beyond dealing with a labor monopoly... into much, much stickier things. (like politician joe blow who is the local union ball polisher isn't going to help
you get approval for your project unless he sates the unions appetite at the same time, etc. That stuff still goes on every day whether people want to admit it or not is
another story. )

Personally I don't have a problem with the labor monopolies, because to some degree or another there's an element of "colluding without admitting you're doing it" in every
labor market, particularly where skilled labor is. And good for you, because you don't want to sell yourself short. But things get f***ey when there's no, or reduced risks to the laborer for pushing the envelope.

Simple concept, we bargain with employers and have a contract. They bid, openly and fairly against union and non union shops for jobs knowing in advance that we cost more.
That's laughable when talking about many unions. Is having a labor monopoly fair? [laugh] Is having gov protection fair? Is having an environment of corruption in
play in these "negotiations" fair? That said I'm not about to make a blanket statement, because I know that different unions operate differently, and there's a sliding scale of corruption with unions going from "none" all the way to "your building is not getting built unless you have X % union labor on site" etc.

I think there's some ethically dicey issues in play here. Like what I mentioned above- I don't have a problem with workers organizing, collective bargaining, whatever it is... but using the power of .gov to hold a gun to peoples heads is not kosher. If a union wants to negotiate with someone on the hard edge they should take the same risks everyone else does in doing so.

-Mike
 

GomerPile

NES Member
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
4,431
Likes
1,657
I call BS. Supermarkets earn 2% profit....a $100M loss of profit would mean they sell like $5B every 11 days which is not true. They lost $100M in sales which is like $2M profit. What am I missing?



There is a story on Masslive about how this strike cost S&S around $100 million. I fail to see how that is going to help anybody. While S&S tries to recover (if they ever can) they are obviously going to need to cut costs. And they will do it through layoff's, cutting employee's hours, reduced benefits and all the other things that will inevitably lead to another strike. Good luck to S&S and their employees.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
69,153
Likes
28,165
There is a story on Masslive about how this strike cost S&S around $100 million. I fail to see how that is going to help anybody. While S&S tries to recover (if they ever can) they are obviously going to need to cut costs. And they will do it through layoff's, cutting employee's hours, reduced benefits and all the other things that will inevitably lead to another strike. Good luck to S&S and their employees.
I wonder how the union will sell that to their "followers" when S&S starts closing stores or shedding some jobs. The "f*** everyone else, I got what I want" thing will come full circle at that point. The funny thing is the remainder will still be saying the same thing.... so much for "solidarity".

ETA: I think GomerPile has a point though, I doubt its a 100M hit. Maybe in gross sales, but lost profit is probably nowhere near that... it's probably a much smaller number of lost profit + ruined food. Of course there's the "customers never coming back" thing, that likely won't be quantified for awhile. S&S is in a lot of urban bullshit(tm)/CtPaTown areas, so some of the shoppers are there out of convenience vs want, though.... will be interesting to see what happens.

-Mike
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 17, 2019
Messages
510
Likes
602
Location
Over the Hills and Far Away
I call BS. Supermarkets earn 2% profit....a $100M loss of profit would mean they sell like $5B every 11 days which is not true. They lost $100M in sales which is like $2M profit. What am I missing?
Who knows what the actual number is, it really doesn't matter. Fact is the company took a big hit as is struggling in many ways especially in the court of public opinion. They will need to cut costs to survive and not by raising prices because they need to bring people back. You can scrutinize the numbers all you want but this will ultimately be a big loss for both S&S and their employees. We the consumer will not lose, too many other places to shop.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
24,593
Likes
3,251
There is a story on Masslive about how this strike cost S&S around $100 million. I fail to see how that is going to help anybody. While S&S tries to recover (if they ever can) they are obviously going to need to cut costs. And they will do it through layoff's, cutting employee's hours, reduced benefits and all the other things that will inevitably lead to another strike. Good luck to S&S and their employees.
Two words:

SELF CHECKOUT
 

KBCraig

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
10,638
Likes
5,446
Location
Granite State of Mind
Trade unions go back to the day of guilds in the medieval era. Guilds trained apprentices into journeymen under masters, and the guilds were their own company. They contracted directly with the builder. They guaranteed quality work, and were paid a premium because of it. Anyone who undercut guild wages was kicked out of the guild.

Sound familiar?

That worked really well for about a century, until the less-competent sort saw that their personal profit lay more in taking control of the guild and kicking out more qualified competitors, and currying favor with potential employers, to the point of outlawing competition.

Sound familiar?

I'm all in favor of trade unions that operate on the guild model. IBEW does a pretty good job of that through much of the country. But, just try going to a trade show in NYC and plugging in your own outlet strip: NOPE, only a union electrician can do that.
 

tuna

NES Member
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
7,148
Likes
6,999
Location
Western Mass
Two words:

SELF CHECKOUT
They already are mostly self checkout from what I’ve seen. No baggers, no one paying attention to help at the checkout and a robot to look for spills, that no one cleans up.

Maybe the owners are looking for a reason to close and sell? They claim too big of a hit to recover and sell to a non union store.
 

RumRunner

NES Member
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Aug 31, 2016
Messages
2,273
Likes
2,711
Location
Malden, MA
My local store always has at least 4 manned (or womanned) lanes open and the non express ones have baggers. I hate self checkout, also hate the ones with the walmart style bag carousel. If there is no bagger that is fine, I don't mind doing it myself, but with the carousel they have to do it and it takes much longer.
 
Top Bottom