Talk:United Food and Commercial Workers

2003 Calif. grocery workers strike -- dubious claims about AFL-CIO

It is not clear that the statement in the second paragraph (that the AFL-CIO failed to mobilize its national resources at key points in the 2003 California grocery workers' strike) or the statement in the last paragraph (that the AFL-CIO's failure to mobilize was the main or even a primary cause of UFCW's disaffiliation from the AFl-CIO) are accurate.

First, these are startling claims. As a labor movement activist, I have not heard these before, and would dispute them.

Second, there are no citations in the article to support these claims.

Third, there are a number of mainstream sources which would argue that UFCW leaders at the national and local level were unprepared for this strike. I freely admit that there are a number of ultra-leftist, ultra-militant publications (primarily socialist worker journals and bloggers) which blame the AFL-CIO, but I do not believe that these could be considered reliable sources except in limited circumstances (such as direct quotations).

However, there are a number of mainstream opinion and labor journals, as well as newspapers, which document the failure of UFCW leadership to prepare their members for a strike and to manage the strike properly.

For example: "As the UFCW's humbling defeat in the California grocery strike showed, the union, after years of friendly relations with so many regional grocery stores, does not know how to conduct an antagonistic national campaign, or how to make use of nationwide publicity and public sympathy for workers." Liza Featherstone. "Will Labor Take the Wal-Mart Challenge?" The Nation. June 28, 2004. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040628/featherstone

For example: "The criticisms that rank-and-file grocery and warehouse workers, strike supporters, and others have voiced point to possible alternative strategic paths the UFCW could have chosen. Despite more than adequate lead time, union officials seemed to have had too narrow a view of what a contract campaign and strike should be. ... it is clear that the union’s leadership did not launch and maintain the kind of strike that could have brought maximum force to the table. ... warehouses and transportation networks have become the Achilles’ heel for companies during a strike...The UFCW came to this conclusion early on when it targeted the chains’ ten distribution centers in the area, but chose--with the complicity of Teamsters Joint Council 42--not to keep pickets up at all ten throughout the entire strike. ... the UFCW leadership did not manage to secure the agreement of the Teamsters to participate over a significantly long period of time, possibly because they did not approach them as soon as they knew what the grocery chains would try. Nor did they seem to have used the possibility of the UFCW helping in Teamster negotiations as leverage. ... Mobilization of the striking members at best looked like the faucet model-turn the tap on and off when leaders wanted it." Chris Kutalik and N. Renuka Uthappa. "What We Can Learn from the Grocery Strike." Labor Notes. April 2004. http://www.labornotes.org/archives/2004/04/articles/c.html

For example: "The main elements of that strategy consisted in (1) not impacting the grocery barons? profits, except in Southern California; (2) attempting to take advantage of the chains' mutual rivalry for profits, at the same time that the firms have erected a united front to deal with their unionized workers; and (3) relying on token picket lines, not massive lines capable of halting deliveries by union and nonunion vendors alike. ... Yet from day one, the union attempted to portray Kroger and Albertsons as not as bad as Safeway, so it only struck Safeway. Kroger, doing business as Ralphs, and Albertsons simultaneously locked out their UFCW members the same day the strike began. That didn't sway the union's strategists, who two weeks into the strike removed their pickets from Kroger/Ralphs supermarkets and encouraged consumers to shop there. Reportedly, the Kroger chain has agreed to share its profits with Safeway and Albertsons." Charles Walker. "Misleaders? Strategy Undermines Grocery Strike." San Diego Indy Media. May 1, 2004. http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/labor/archive3.shtml

For example: "The drawbacks of Dority’s approach became apparent as seven Southern California leaders squabbled over strategy, failed to acknowledge the corporate willingness to forgo short-term profits, and stumbled over outreach to other unions that stood ready with resources and good will. ... The union failed to present a clear message to the public, shoppers and even its own members. In the early days of the strike, picketers outside the Albertsons at the Baldwin-Crenshaw plaza urged shoppers to get their groceries at, of all places, the nearby nonunion Wal-Mart. The union misplayed strong public support of the strike by lifting pickets at all Ralphs stores... Outreach to the crucial Teamsters union was spotty. Early pickets were sent to grocery-distribution warehouses, but the Teamsters crossed freely. ... Leaders realized things were going poorly and called in the AFL-CIO in December to take over strategy, but failed to follow up." Robert Greene. "Surrender at the Supermarket." L.A. Weekly. March 5-11, 2004.

For example: "A UFCW spokeswoman declined to comment. Union leaders focused the week of March 1 on President Douglas H. Dority's retirement and the election of his successor, Joseph T. Hansen." Eric Lekus. "California Settlement Maintains Most Health Benefits, Creates Two-Tier Wages." Labor Relations Week. March 4, 2004. (subscription only)

For example: "The AFL-CIO Oct. 30 announced the creation of a national strike fund to help thousands of grocery workers who are on strike in several states in disputes centered on higher employee costs for health care coverage. AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney told reporters that the federation will contribute to the 'Hold the Line for Health Care Strike Fund,' and will ask its affiliated unions to contribute as well. In addition, he said, he will call on the 50 state federations and more than 300 central labor councils in the AFL-CIO to raise money for the fund. ... A number of union presidents and allies of the labor movement pledged their support for the strikers." "AFL-CIO Announces Creation of Strike Fund To Help UFCW Members in Grocery Disputes." Labor Relations Week. November 6, 2003. (subscription only)

If there is evidence to support the article's existing contention, then that evidence should be cited.

I would also argue that the article should include the evidence that UFCW leadership at the national and local level mishandled the strike as well.

Fourth, I can find no sources which indicate that either Douglas Dority or Joe Hansen -- UFCW's two most recent presidents during the AFL-CIO internal debate (which began in October 2003 when "Business Week" revealed that Andrew Stern of SEIU had established a caucus within the AFL-CIO named the New Unity Partnership) -- made any statements about lack of AFL-CIO support during the 2003 grocery workers' strike to be a reason behind UFCW's disaffiliation. Now, Hansen made thousands of public statements during this time. I have not read or seen all of them. But I have never come across such a statement.

I did, however, make a search of the "Labor Relations Week" archives beginning Nov. 1, 2003 and continuing to Dec. 31, 2005. This is the most respected labor news publication in the U.S., and is owned by BNA, Inc. (a nonprofit which publishes, among other things, "National Journal" and a number of technical and legal publications). None of the articles in "Labor Relations Week" indicates that Hansen felt the AFL-CIO failed UFCW during the grocery worker's strike.

There were six articles which mentioned Douglas Dority, but only one which discussed the grocery worker's strike. And that article contained no criticism of the AFL-CIO.

There were 27 articles which mentioned Joe Hansen. While many were critical of the AFL-CIO for a number of reasons, never was the grocery workers' strike mentioned. For example, see Hansen's statements in:

* Michelle Amber. "AFL-CIO Officers Issue Recommendations For Uniting, Strengthening Labor Movement." Labor Relations Week. May 5, 2005.

* Michelle Amber. "Four Unions Offer Joint Reform Plan For AFL-CIO, Call for New Leadership." Labor Relations Week. May 19, 2005.

* Michelle Amber. "Five Unions Form Coalition to Pressure AFL-CIO Leadership, Push For Change." Labor Relations Week. June 16, 2005.

* Michelle Amber and Michael Bologna. "Departure of SEIU, Teamsters Creates Split Within AFL-CIO on Convention's Opening Day." Labor Relations Week. July 28, 2005.

* "UFCW Becomes Third Union To Leave AFL-CIO in One Week." Labor Relations Week. August 4, 2005.

* "Hansen Says UFCW, Other Coalition Partners Will Not Join AFL-CIO 'Solidarity Charters'." Labor Relations Week. August 18, 2005.

* "State, Local Labor Leaders Call for Unity As Dissident Unions Blast Solidarity Charters." Labor Relations Week. August 25, 2005.

* Eric Lekus. "Constitution of Change to Win Federation Commits 75 Percent of Taxes to Organizing." Labor Relations Week. September 29, 2005.

From this, I can only conclude that Hansen's criticisms of the AFL-CIO did not include lack of support for the grocery workers. I would argue the article should be changed to reflect this evidence, rather the startling and unsupported conclusion it currently contains.

If there is evidence for such a conclusion, then that evidence should be cited (even a quotation from President Hansen offered) and Hansen's reasons for leaving the AFL-CIO cited at length rather than leaving the reader with the conclusion that it was only the grocery workers' strike that caused the disaffiliation. Tim1965 02:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

MFD

Claiming that MFD is nothing but a bunch of disgruntled ex-job seekers needs a cite. Citing MFD in its own defense is a conflict of interest, although it does get MFD's side into the article. Both claims need neutral, third-party citations. If those cannot be provided, I would strongly suggest that the claims be removed as mere rumor and public dissing-matches. - Tim1965 15:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Kroger section

Having friends who suffer under Kroger's crappy management, I'm as much a fan of UFCW as anyone. But this section contains language not suitable for an encyclopedia ("clobbered," for example), and uses hyperbole to discuss the facts of the situation. Second, citing a UFCW Web site is not a neutral citation. And nothing on that Web site is actually linked to or cited. (This is akin to saying "Dick Cheney once shot a man" and then linking to the White House Web site. We shouldn't make readers do the work that we're supposed to do for them.) There are many newspaper articles, labor media pieces, and even books about the battle with Kroger. Cite those. It would make the article 100 percent better. Absent NPOV citations and language improvements, the NPOV tag is required by Wiki policy, I'm afraid. - Tim1965 13:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, some of the words are too strong or harsh. "Crushed", "Smashed", and "Clobbered" are just a few examples. This is not an article on demolition...or so I thought. Flashpoint145 13:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk page for discussion of article only, please

I removed some vandalism from the talk page here. Talk pages are for discussions of the quality of an article, questions about issues raised in articles, approaches to writing or research problems concerning articles, etc. They are not for expressing personal opinions (laudatory or derogatory) about the issues discussed in the article. Such opinions would be NPOV, and are not part of Wikipedia. - Tim1965 12:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

That's ridiculous

Calling the UFCW leadership "commies" and assuming that the leadership will settle for less pay and that the strike will fail is NPOV. - Tim1965 02:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious

That you're a labor activist hellbent on a labor extremist agenda. NPOV is now the second different excuse you have used to justify your actions.

Assuming the UFCW will settle for less money is not unfair at all. They settled for less than the original offer in the strike of 03-04. It's not the union that settled, it's the workers they supposedly are out to protect. Keep editing and keep coming back with excuse after excuse. It's fun!

ack ... WP:OR ... grrrr

I wanted to add:

The 2007 farming season sees the first, large scale, First Aid training of seasonal and migrant agricultural workers across Ontario, paid for by their employers, under these new rules.

to the end of the Legal challenges section ... but ... since I know it first hand ...WP:OR stops me, all I can do is say it here and hope someone can find a good citation :/
Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 22:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Horribly biased article

This is the danger of wikipedia- an article can become completely biased and a joke. The section on the 2003 strike looks like it was completely written by a UFCW worker. Marionbutts (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

In what way? I don't think that comments like this are helpful. Unionizewalmart (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Advertisement

The "retail" section is essentially a union advertisement. A documented section listing the negotiations made by the UFCW with each company would be acceptable. A section talking about how certain union workers in certain companies "enjoy" certain privileges is nothing but an ad for the union. Marionbutts (talk) 07:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of article

I reorganized the article, added a reference section, added three web citations, eliminated as many weasel words and biased comments as I could in an effort to reach NPOV.

In order to be a good article, this article needs more information on: - the UFCW's labor agreements - controversy within the UFCW

In order to stay on the right track, we must keep out: - sections that deliberately praise the UFCW (such as the old "charity" section) - sections that deliberately lambast the UFCW

Marionbutts (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the need for balance. The newly-added "criticisms" section runs afoul of your suggestion. It should be integrated into the section on Wal-Mart to provide a balanced discussion of UFCW's actions in regard to that company, not sitting out there on its own (especially when it is only about the Wal-Mart campaign and not generalized). - Tim1965 (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm the person who added the new criticism section. I did so because the article needs balance. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning: Lobbyists Berman and Company at work

This article has been edited anonymously by Berman and Company, who are lobbyists for amongst others the American Beverage Institute, the Center for Consumer Freedom, the Center for Union Facts and the Employment Policies Institute.

IP address of 66.208.14.242 traces to Berman and Company, see the Whois report. I Spy With My Big Eye (talk) 10:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Under Wikipedia rules, it doesn't matter. So long as someone follows the rules of Wikipedia, they can make all the changes they want, whether they're Adolf Hitler or Gandhi. I agree, individuals with a vested interest need to be watched closely because they tend to make changes which violate NPOV, undue weight, and citation guidelines. Otherwise, they can make all the changes they like. - Tim1965 (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely bad edits. I've removed the WP:LINKSPAM the lobbyists inserted[1], and another bad link. Most of the external links here are clearly inappropriate anyway per WP:EL. Links to activist / protest sites that oppose (or support) the organization that is the subject of the article should all be removed. Wikidemo (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Good catch! - Tim1965 (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• • User:Tim1965 people get banned for this all the time. We can post a Conflict of interest template on this article too. {{COI|date=November 2014}} Thewhitebox (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Union members becoming loyal Walmart customers? Pressuring Walmart to become a union?

I read this article about how this union group doesn't boycott Walmart, they become fiercely loyal customers, and every time they visit Walmart, they leave one piece of union literature on a counter or shelf, talk to employees about unions or give them literature, etc. It is difficult for Walmart to stop because these people are loyal paying customers.

Has anyone else recall reading an article about this? I found the several articles mentioning it, but I can't seem to find it. Thewhitebox (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:United Food and Commercial Workers/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

This is one of the most biased, negative, and incomplete items I have ever seen in Wikipedia. It provides almost no information about what the union does, which workers it represents, or the thousands of union contracts it negotiates for its members every year. An example of its one-sidedness is mention about the Smithfield company's charges against the union during an organizing campaign, including quotes from a Smithfield official, but does not include any mention of the numerous labor law violations the union has charged the company with committing -- or the $12 million fine the EPA ordered Smithfield to pay for water pollution. Another example of bias is mention of the California grocery strike with no point of view from the union workers and why they felt compelled to strike -- only negative things about the settlement. Nearly two thirds of the article discusses "work stoppages and conflict with corporations", "internal reform efforts" and "criticism." Ninety-nine percent of all contract negotiations are settled without strikes, but none of these are mentioned. The "criticism" section mentions a newspaper article from 2005 and nothing else. Why not have a "plaudits" section to provide perspective? Resources listed include some of the most anti-union websites in existence with very few labor references that could provide a balanced picture. This item not only is utterly incomplete, but it is not in the least objective.

Last edited at 16:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 09:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)