subject: The Latest in the 2003 Grocery Strike [print this page] For years, legal minds around the country have watched closely as a battle between California grocery store owners and unionized employees continues to brew. In mid August, 2010, the unions were finally able to claim at least a small victory. LawCrossing.com founder A. Harrison Barnes says this is just one of the many layers that are a part of this suit. Here's what happened:
In 2003, grocery employers opted to strike when a compromise couldn't be reached on an affordable health plan (and a few other important aspects). The strike involved more than 70,000 workers - who were mostly grocery clerks - and is considered "one of the most significant actions the U.S. labor movement took in the last twenty years". Between what was referred to as "minimal health benefits", pension funds and the hours they worked, five months, the length of the strike itself, quickly began to feel overwhelming. From there, grocers, including Albertsons, Ralphs and Bons, from around the state come together to define a "multiemployer bargaining unit", with the purpose being of positioning itself into stronger profits, regardless of how the strike continued to unfold. Citing competition from Wal Mart and its ability to buy in bulk, the grocers stood their ground firmly and powerfully, since there is strength in numbers. Ironically, the unit chose to use Wal Mart as the one most responsible but also, the unit declared that the giant retailer didn't have to pay health benefits for more than half its employees, so why should the grocers? It's this profit sharing scenario, devised by the grocers, that was decided most recently in court.
The LawCrossing.com founder explains a federal appeals court ruled that the arrangement violated antitrust laws and more specifically, the Sherman Act. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was responsible for the ruling that pitted the state of California against the bargaining unit. Needless to say, attorneys from across the country have been closely watching this unfold, especially since their response to the strikes was to share the profits between themselves. The defendants believed they were simply ensuring a pro-competitive stance and shouldn't have been held to the state compliance laws. There are many players, to be sure. Some say this is the case that has led to more grocers opting for automated checkout lines, where customers simply scan their own merchandise and then pay via a card swiper or by sliding cash into a feeder. The transaction is approved, the receipt is printed and the customer is on his way - often with never having said a word to a single employee from the time he walks into the door until he leaves. Clearly, this is not good for the employment sector, especially since the trend seems to be continuing.
So what happens now? The case has been remanded for the time being, says A. Harrison Barnes. With so much at stake, it's sure to be another several years before this case is brought to its conclusion. Sadly, it appears there will be no winners.
