you are a cop, and the person who responds to you and accuses you of being a cop or a corporate guy is also a cop!

you're all COPS!

Frenchie, you made me laugh. (nice)

Re: TI, I guess I'm just saying that people should go in and talk to the employees, as I did, and then decide whether or not to boycott that store.

the last time this same article was posted there was a response from someone else who went to treasure island to check it out. they came up with a different response. i'm interested to see more dialogue on this.

this is the same article from like two weeks ago. not different at all- no updates? or is this more PR propaganda from the hired lackeys?

pr propaganda?
To talk to the (not management, but)employees of the store?

oh, let me clarify. i meant PR Lackeys. I was referring to the PR people that management often hires when faced with a possible strike.

yes, unions can be corrupt and management can be nice. i especially wouldn't take that second one to the bank. it's usually the poor person that get's screwed over. besides, no one should have to rely upon the benevolence of an employer. living wages are a right, not the mercy of the oppressor's benevolence.

Well, I'm not arguing, but I just don't see asking people to talk to the employees as being management PR.
It's easy to talk about "oppressors" and the like, but it's a shame to hurt those who can least afford it in order to live in some marxist dream world.
It seems like a reasonable request to me, to talk to the employees there (you don't have to buy anything). If it is management PR, then they must feel that they've been treating their employees in a decent manner. At any rate, it does seem reasonable. It's so easy to look at the world through pre-concieved dogmas, but in fact, the world is a little more nuanced then that (sometimes), and it couldn't hurt. And like the first poster jokingly suggested, maybe there's no one you can trust on these sites: it could be "evil management" pr, or it could be "evil union" pr.
The thing to do is just go in and talk to the employees yourself (again, you don't have to buy anything).
I did, in fact, and I won't go in detail, but the situation there does seem a little more nuanced than: bad management, good union.

Well, I'm not arguing, but I just don't see asking people to talk to the employees as being management PR.
It's easy to talk about "oppressors" and the like, but it's a shame to hurt those who can least afford it in order to live in some marxist dream world.
It seems like a reasonable request to me, to talk to the employees there (you don't have to buy anything). If it is management PR, then they must feel that they've been treating their employees in a decent manner. At any rate, it does seem reasonable. It's so easy to look at the world through pre-concieved dogmas, but in fact, the world is a little more nuanced then that (sometimes), and it couldn't hurt. And like the first poster jokingly suggested, maybe there's no one you can trust on these sites: it could be "evil management" pr, or it could be "evil union" pr.
The thing to do is just go in and talk to the employees yourself (again, you don't have to buy anything).
I did, in fact, and I won't go in detail, but the situation there does seem a little more nuanced than: bad management, good union.

Actually, K. I think this is a little self-serving. You like to shop at the Old Town TI. It has lots of tasty imported goodies you enjoy. You've already said as much. And And you'd hate to have to switch...for whatever reasons. I think we get the picture here.

(incidentally, come to my retail job as customer while I'm on the clock, and I and my co-workers will all tell you that we ABSOlUTELY love our jobs and like our management, -- see, no matter how regular you are as a customer, that really doesn't make you our friend, co-worker, or someone we might share sentiments with that might cost us our jobs. It's called discretion and survival. }

So why does it seem that you'd like others here to sign off on your choice to continue shopping at an anti-union store? A little liberal guilt?Either you have principles that are important to you or not. Life's full of little compromises, but selling out for a pound of French Roast, or tri-color pasta seems bit cheap.

(BTW) There are more TI stores than the Old Town location. You might try talking to their employees as well.

Well,actually,they ARE a union store. It's not a question of shopping at a non-union store, it's a question of the new contract that they haven't been able to vote on (because of the union)and that they evidently don't want.
So, of course, if the employees are against the new contract (and this IS what's all about), I guess, we should assume that we and their union know more than they do about what's good for them, since they come from lower economic strata, and don't have the smarts or education that we and their union has.
Your so right, why even bother talking to the employees to see what THEY want.

I'm sure our friend has a good reason why he doesn't want us to talk to the employees ourselves.
So,
PLEASE don't talk to the employees yourself, to see what they have to say about the new contract!
Just wait, and you can probably get all sorts of reports here, that I'm sure you can trust, so don't bother talking to the employees yourselves(and what do they know, anyway).

So K, are you asking us to 'take your word' for how the employees you've claimed to talk to feel?

Excuse me, but why?

News flash to K. Any contract - ( as opposed to a letter of agreement) - negotiated by a union and management has to be voted on and ratified by the membership of the bargaining unit. It's the law. Just thought you ought to know.

Perhap's you're referring to TI management's latest contract proposal to the union? Or maybe you're confusing a contract offer with a signed contract?

Hey, I shop at the Treasure Island in Lakeview on North Broadway. Union or no-union, I feel helluva lot better shopping there than the Dominicks or Jewel nearby. Their food is better, the employees are much nicer/more professional, the store is cleaner, and it is not a behemoth like the others. I too talked to the union people protesting outside (I have never seen them in the store) and was a little suspicious too. Especially when I heard the check-out people looking out like "why are they doing that?" Strange.

K,
I'm not flat out saying you're wrong. Maybe you're completely right, i was just responding a little critically. i find this discussion important as others chime in. i don't shop there, it's not in my hood, so i'm hardly the expert. if i did shop there i would be nosy as well and ask. T.J. has a point about talking to employees while they're on the clock.

what did the people picketing say about the situation? maybe there is a union that needs to be called out on their smack...

hey amega, I'm not even saying that I'm right, truely I don't know, it's just the very, very strong impression that I got when I talked to the staff. So, I'm just suggesting that other might want to do the same; i.e. talk to the employees, and then make up their own minds. It's so easy to jump on a dogma-driven bandwagon, but sometime it's just not "cut & dry" (unlike, say: "dump bush")k

I really don't understand why "k" is so invested in this issue.

And if "k" has spent as much time talking to people as s/he claims, why has s/he offered up so little in the way of substantive facts, instead offering up loads of speculative rhetoric that for the most part, fails to say much of anything?

UFCW 881 website UFCW 1546 website Grocery store union targets 2 small Chicago-area chains By Delroy Alexander Chicago Tribune staff reporter Published March 16, 2004 Even the friendly neighborhood grocery store can't avoid the burgeoning labor battle launched by Chicago-area supermarket workers determined to maintain health and pension benefits. Labor unrest previously contained to the major chains, Dominick's and Jewel Foods, spread Monday to two popular, family-owned store operators. Asking shoppers to boycott stores while workers try to negotiate a new labor deal, the United Food and Commercial Workers union began a flier campaign at six Treasure Island locations and the two Potash Bros. Supermart stores on the North Side of Chicago, where labor contracts ended March 7. The chains are in separate talks, but their key concerns are similar. At the center of both disputes are attempts by management to force workers to pick up a greater share of fast-rising health insurance costs and welfare benefits, said union leaders. Those same issues were at the root of a 138-day strike in Southern California that inconvenienced millions of customers and cost three major grocery chains hundreds of millions of dollars in lost sales before its resolution Feb. 29. That's when workers ratified new contracts giving them no raises and requiring them to contribute money toward their health benefits for the first time. Workers did receive two one-time bonuses in the deal. Locally, grocers said they didn't expect the dispute to escalate at this point. "We were surprised by the move," said Art Potash. "We are still in negotiations." Almost a quarter of the 160 workers at Potash Bros., founded in 1950, have been working at the Gold Coast and Sandburg Village stores for more than 10 years, said the owner. A pitch to customers In a letter to customers, Treasure Island said many of its 400-plus workers were long serving and that it would "maintain and increase" employee wages. "The union has not even allowed the employees a vote on these matters," said the letter available in its stores. "Even with the impact of a slow economy, higher operating costs including health-care costs, and increased competition, Treasure Island has never laid off an employee." The action at two small local operators that have traditionally had good relations with their workers comes just weeks after a bitter pay and benefits battle ended in Southern California, where workers had gone on a 138-day strike to help maintain health and welfare benefits. It also comes just days before grocery workers union Locals 881 and 1546 expect contract talks at Dominick's to lead to a new proposal from management to end a long-running stalemate. Union officials privately are suggesting that negotiations at Dominick's could lead to a more substantial dispute unless concessions are made by management at the company's parent, Safeway Inc. Workers at Dominick's, which is in the process of closing 12 local stores, have been without a new labor deal since a bitter dispute over similar benefit issues at the end of 2002. Union leaders said they expected to see details of a new deal soon. Just last week, newly named national union President Joe Hansen said he expected Chicago's talks with Dominick's to be a proving ground of how future labor relations would evolve. Proposals defended Executives at Treasure Island and Potash appeared taken aback by the public hostilities, but both defended current proposals in light of increased competition in the sector. Potash said he was asking staff to contribute between $5 and $10 per week toward the cost of health insurance to offset employer contributions that had more than doubled in the last couple of years. Treasure Island said that it had proposed a new health-care plan and optional HMO because "funds the union demands Treasure Island to pay in to have come close to running out of money several times in the past year." Local 881 spokeswoman Elizabeth Drea said the companies were trying to "gut the workers' health insurance coverage and put their future pension benefits at risk." She said that under the proposed deals, employees at those companies would have to work between 30 and 32 hours per week to maintain eligibility for health insurance, which would see more than 50 percent of workers lose their entitlement altogether at Potash. At Treasure Island, workers who qualify for insurance would have to contribute up to $60 per week, she said. Potash and Treasure Island also are proposing that union employees, who currently participate in the UFCW guaranteed pension fund, switch to individual 401(k) plans. The companies are "gambling" with their workers' retirement benefits, said Local 881 President Ron Powell. Union seeking boycott vs. 2 grocery chains March 16, 2004 BY FRANCINE KNOWLES Sun Times Business Reporter The union representing roughly 550 workers at Treasure Island Foods and Potash Bros. grocery stores in the Chicago area is asking consumers to boycott the stores because of proposed changes to employee health insurance and pension benefits. Under the companies' health insurance proposals, some employees currently eligible for health insurance would no longer be, said a spokeswoman for the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 881, whose contracts with the companies expired earlier this month. The proposals would either raise employees' health care costs or reduce benefits, she added. The companies also propose to replace the current pension plan, which provides guaranteed benefits, with employee-directed 401(k) plans, she said. Art Potash, owner of Potash Bros. Market, said the company must reduce health care costs. He said employees presently pay nothing toward their insurance premiums, and his proposal would require that they contribute $5 to $10 a week. Treasure Island criticized the union for calling for a boycott before any vote on its proposal. The union represents nearly 400 workers at six Treasure Island Stores and roughly 150 workers at two Potash Bros. stores. Workers at Potash, Treasure Island, stepping up pressure March 18, 2004 BY FRANCINE KNOWLES Sun Times Business Reporter The parties involved in a labor contract dispute affecting about 550 grocery workers at Potash Bros. and Treasure Island Foods are stepping up the pressure. The union, which earlier this week called for a boycott of the grocers in part because of proposals from the companies that the union says would gut workers' health insurance plans, said Wednesday it has filed an unfair labor practice charge against Treasure Island. The United Food and Commercial Workers Local 881 accused the company of threatening to unilaterally change the terms and conditions of the employees' health care benefits. The union also charged that Treasure Island, which operates six stores in Chicago and employs nearly 400 people, "unlawfully engaged in direct dealing with employees by enrolling them in health plans that were not agreed to by the union." In a letter sent to Treasure Island Chief Executive Officer and President Christ Kamberos, the union said it had learned the company has threatened to cease making contributions to the union's and employers' benefits fund effective March 31. Kamberos could not be reached for comment. In calling for the boycott Monday of Treasure Island and Potash Bros., the union also blasted the companies' proposals to replace current guaranteed pension plans with employee-directed 401(k) plans. Treasure Island earlier this week criticized the union for calling for the boycott before any vote on its proposal. Art Potash, owner of Potash Bros., which operates two stores in Chicago that employ about 150 workers, said the company must reduce health care costs. He said employees presently pay nothing toward their insurance premiums and his proposal would require that they contribute $5 to $10 a week. But at a press conference Wednesday, Local 881 President Ronald E. Powell said the companies proposals would require some employees to pay up to $60 per week for coverage and eliminate coverage for some workers. The press conference drew support from Illinois AFL-CIO President Margaret Blackshere and Chicago Federation of Labor President Dennis Gannon. Potash said he met with the union Tuesday and he's hopeful a settlement will be reached. The union's contracts with the companies expired earlier this month. Union spokeswoman Elizabeth Drea said no strike authorization vote has taken place or is scheduled and talks are continuing with the companies.