U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
June 20, 2009 12:05 AM UTC
49 Comments
I guess the grocery employees would rather be locked out and unemployed or drive the supermarkets into bankruptcy.
n/t
Silly. I guess grocery store executives would rather put their employees on welfare or not have bonuses.
At least MRD can rest peacefully knowing that Governor Ritter vetoed HB 1170, so thankfully these workers and their families won’t be able to receive unemployment until this is resolved. We wouldn’t want them to eat or anything.
like the part about grocery stores posting huge profits. People are eating out less – they’re grocery shopping and eating at home – and the Kroger CEO says that’s paying off for them. If the supermarkets are rewarding their CEOs and management for profit performance, they should do the same for the people on the front lines.
I’d suggest educating yourself further here:
http://www.alwayshereforcolorado.com
I just don’t agree with you. The standard view of the union is if a company gives a return to shareholders, then the union left something on the table. Or should I say, some unions. Kroger reached an agreement with UFCW in Albuquerque. Perhaps the local UFCW is far more belligerent and less inclined to reach an agreement than their counterparts in New Mexico.
I also agree with the Governor’s veto of HB1170. This is no time to legislate intervention into company/union negotiations.
HB1170 was about fairness.
Wasn’t Ludlow wonderful????
So, now salary and benefit negotiations is about making a corporation “pay for their decisions”. Sounds like punishment, not a very rational and reasonable negotiation position to have.
…..are no Democrat. Not even a conservative one.
On the spectrum, I’d put you as a middle of the road ‘Pub.
Your attitude is the beginning of the downturn of the Democratic Party. Not all of us check all reason at the door and blindly support unions. In fact, probably a majority of Democrats agree with me but their voices aren’t heard.
Or the Republican Party, for that matter. It is all about working stiffs trying to get a decent day’s pay for a decent day’s work.
Tell me exactly what it is you read into this that has to do with political parties.
Unions stifle any rational and public discussion on this issue with their bleating and coercion that the Democratic Party is the Union Party, rather than the fact of the matter that there are union members in the Democratic Party but it is still okay to disagree occasionally with unions. We’re not in the UK and the Labour Party.
the ‘silent majority’
When he intervened on behalf of the corporations and drop-kicked 30 years of Colorado labor law in 1999?
Please, go join the Princeton rappers, because you make about as much sense.
The grocers and shareholders are doing just fine in this recession because, as has been mentioned, people are eating out less. This is a case of greed, trying to take advantage of the general economic situation, high unemployment, fear of losing jobs, to screw their workers and weaken the union.
The grocery workers know that their sector is strong, there is no reason why they should be asked to make concessions and they are refusing to be intimidated. Good for them. They work hard and deserve a fair share when times are good for owners, management and shareholders.
If there is a strike or a lock out I won’t be shopping the effected stores. Of course I’ve never crossed a picket line or done business with scabs in my life. If my grandparents were still alive they’d disown me if I did. And they’d be right to do so after all they did to secure decent wages, hours, safety requirements and benefits for ordinary Americans.
They were the creators of the broad, prosperous American middle class that has been the reliable engine of the world economy. We can all see where screwing the American middle has gotten us.
It was when virtually w/o an option and something was needed. I always took the time to talk with some of the strikers to let them know….no, wait, get their absolution of my guilt. Actually, they understood.
At least I’m being consistent.
in defending greedy CEOs over the average family. Good work. Go buy yourself another boat then. Then maybe we can call you middle of the lake dem.
Do you live out in the bush somewhere? And no Parsing, gracing them with a chat while undermining them doesn’t make it any better. You are either with the workers or against them.
Welcome to the 21st Century where “workers” and “management” are in the same boat. I suggest you folks learn how to read a balance sheet and income statement. The concept of “us” versus “them” is so passee.
but reading and facts are so passe to you (that would be with an accent aigu, not accent graves).
“For example, did you know that the CEO of King Soopers’ income rose 45% between 2007 and 2008, and that Kroger’s (King Soopers’ parent) revenue grew to over $76 billion last year?”
Yep, CEO making $13 million = guy working double-shift at $11 an hour on Easter. I’m sure they drive the same car and vacation in the same spots, too.
How much was their net income? That number is far more important than their gross revenue because that is the number used for returns to shareholders and investment in any new stores (which creates more jobs). Your interpretation of the numbers only shows your ignorance of business practices.
classic ‘hey look over there!’ tactics.
People are more important than things. Grocery stores are profiting, and they should recognize the people who are making them profits. It’s that simple.
Accusing me of being a Marxist? Isn’t that straight from the rightie talking points list? Nothing middle of any road in that ridiculous remark.
You are completely ignoring the fact that this ISN’T a balance sheet issue. The balance sheet is fine. The companies’ profits are holding up extemely well, shareholders not in trouble and CEOs salaries are growing quite nicely while the employees are being asked to settle for less.
Ignoring facts and throwing out talking points instead of actually responding is a hallmark of today’s wacko far right. You’re middle of the road compared to who?
I always worry that people are going to confuse this guy with me.
It always takes me a second or two of “huh?” Then I realize it doesn’t sound like you because it’s not. That’s why I call you “Middle” and this bozo “MRD” in replies.
Nothing middle or moderate about either
The median income of grocery employees? During this contract “negotiation” I’ve heard $11/hr. thrown around a lot, but I also remember hearing that there are senior checkers who make $30/hr. +.
Don’t have enough info.
I think they top out at around $14, but someone can correct me if I’m wrong, and most of them start out around minimum wage. I think meatcutters go up to $16 an hour, and that’s after like 10 years of experience.
And has been repeatedly brought out, new hires don’t qualify for health insurance for an entire year.
I don’t think King’s would be able to float all those deals like $4 generic prescriptions and $0.10 per gallon gas discounts if they had a bunch of checkers making $30 an hour.
Every time we get our prescriptions for cheap it’s because the CEO’s are picking up the bill out of the kindness of their hearts.
😀
Trust me, they hear workers’ pleas loud and clear and they respond with blue light specials and double coupon days when they know people are hurting.
The workers don’t need a union to convey their needs to the bosses. The bosses pay close attention and quickly respond to those sorts of things. They have a whole fleet of researchers and people on the ground to remedy that rare happenstance of a worker not making a living wage or needing time away from the ultra-fulfilling monotony of clerking to take care of a loved one in need.
I don’t know why the lower classes are so spoiled. Don’t they know how good they have it? If the world didn’t have the rich to take care of it, who would?
Is $1.60. (But their prices are already about $0.03/gal higher than the competition to start with.) I have to buy $100 worth of groceries to qualify for it. How much of that $100 is profit? Certainly more than 1.6 percent. Somehow I think the numbers are working out OK for King Soopers/City Market.
the Sinclair on Broadway and Dry Creek is usually the cheapest in my area, including the supermarkets with the discount.
But I’m not too far from the King’s at Bear Valley, and with the discount that one beats everyone as far as I can tell.
If you get your prescriptions filled at a King’s pharmacy, you get 50 points per scrip. That means you can qualify for the discount after spending $8 instead of $100. I believe it’s the same at City Market.
I think they have other things, too, but don’t know what they are off the top of my head.
Einstein’s dreams, i think you’re very close in your guess-timates.
Here’s my understanding of the situation:
Newly hired courtesy clerks at Safeway and King Soopers make about the same starting wage as a newly hired Wal-Mart worker — between seven and eight dollars an hour. While the unionized grocery workers will eventually benefit from having a contract guaranteeing a pension, health care, etc., the companies have successfully extended the time it takes for those benefits to kick in.
Pay raises are painfully slow, and once someone tops out in their rates, there are no more raises, no matter how long they work for the company (unless they are allowed to move to a different job).
Under the existing contract, new grocery workers wait a year to eighteen months for benefits, and have to wait 3-4 years to enroll their families in benefits programs.
Grocery workers are working under a two tier system. Two people can be doing the same job, with one of the two — the person in the “second tier” — making substantially less money than the other.
New grocery workers have two paid holidays, while first tier workers have seven. Second tier wages are much lower, and progression raises come more slowly.
While first tier workers can make time-and-a-half or better for working overtime, holidays, etc., second tier workers make only a dollar an hour more.
The companies are making record profits, in part because the wages they pay have dropped so low.
But something more is at work here. Like Wal-Mart, the grocery chains have adopted a method by which they can maximize productivity while minimizing labor costs. The lower levels of management are not salaried, they’re hourly. Thus, many workers can be assigned departmental responsibility, without the authority or pay scale that would normally come with salaried positions. Because they’re hourly workers, they’re under tremendous pressure to get an ever-increasing list of chores accomplished during their normal work hours.
All of the companies seem content to dump more work onto fewer workers. Safeway workers in particular are working in skeleton crews, with some workers having responsibility for two, three, or more areas. Assigning multiple responsibilities to an under-staffed workforce, together with rigorous monitoring of their performance, can be extremely stressful on the workers (not to mention strenuous!)
Meanwhile, many workers are part time, and may not be offered anywhere near the hours necessary to support themselves, let alone raise a family.
While grocery worker jobs are good jobs, they’re increasingly taking on sweatshop characteristics. Thus, there is an undercurrent of anger and resentment about the way that management is treating the people who actually create all of the profits for the grocery corporations.
The companies are proposing pension cuts that will reduce pension benefits by 50 percent or more. They want to take away death benefits, and increase the minimum retirement age by five years. They are proposing a very small wage increase for long term employees, but under the current proposal many grocery workers who aren’t about to top out in their progression raises may receive no wage increase at all for the (possibly five year) life of the contract. As such, their wages may not even keep up with inflation.
Is it therefore surprising that more than nine out of ten grocery workers have rejected the current contract offer?
Disclosure: i am involved in the effort to get a good contract for grocery workers. I am not in any sense a spokesperson for the union, so i am merely offering my personal opinion here.
For instance, what’s the highest hourly possible for a checker?
If I could ask a simple question, and please don’t take offense:
Aren’t these jobs relatively low-skill in terms of training and education?
If so, why would the employees ‘deserve’ health, pension, and retirement plans?
Are there some jobs in the marketplace that should be filled predominantly transitional or new workers to the workforce?
I’d love as clinical of an answer as anyone can give me. I’m not trying to be disparaging, and I might simply be wrong. There may be much more training or education required that I don’t realize exists.
is $28,000 a year. That’s hardly a king’s ransom, let alone enough to support a 4-person family and still have enough left over to save to move up from lower middle class. I’m not saying that you don’t pose valid questions, I’m just trying to put it in perspective.
If people have those benefits, that definitely helps give them the opportunity to save their money and at least maybe give their children the opportunity to go to school and get a better job than grocery clerk.
and I’d imagine a data-entry clerk would be similar to a checker technology-wise, and a lot less physically demanding in terms of staying on your feet all day. These are not sitting-behind-a-desk jobs, and they require working hours most other people won’t – like overnight shifts, snowstorms and holidays. You’re buying food on Easter, they’re working.
And in answer to your question, and I mean this sincerely – it used to be in this country that you could earn a modest (not extravagant) living with decent benefits and job security without a four-year college education. The fact that we’ve lost that anchor it to me a big reason why the economy had gone off a cliff. You work hard, you play by the rules, you ought to be able to earn a living, go to the doctor regularly, and retire early enough to enjoy your grandkids.
No offense taken, Laughing Boy, i’m happy to respond.
As far as “low-skill” jobs, how would you like it if the grocery store’s pharmacy technician who fills your family’s prescriptions wasn’t properly trained? I’ve talked to a lot of pharmacy techs in the stores, and they all seem bright and intelligent, and with good communications skills — essential qualities for their jobs, i’d say.
There’s also potential danger to the employees themselves, if they haven’t received the proper training. Some of these stores have full, on-premises butcher shops. Ever think about the fact that there’s no difference to a saw blade whether flesh is living or not?
I’ve had a conversation with one Safeway worker whose hand was heavily bandaged, and in a cast. He had recently tangled with the slicer in the deli. He apparently cut himself pretty deeply, and he will not have the bandages/cast removed for months. I expect he (now) well appreciates the level of skill and training necessary to do the job safely.
Likewise, there are mechanical devices in other departments that could maim or crush, or send a wire flying dangerously through the air. I’m thinking in particular of the box crusher, which requires employees to feed wires around a large bundle of cardboard, compress using a special-purpose crusher, and then lock the whole thing down by fastening the retention wires. I can imagine how easy it would be for one of those wires to catch someone in the face during compression, if the employee wasn’t properly trained.
Now also consider, the first levels of management are hourly. This means hourly workers in grocery stores (and even in Wal-Mart!) need to have all the skills necessary to run a department, or (in the case of a head clerk or night crew foreman) to run the whole store. (The store manager does not work 24 hours a day.)
So we have hourly workers responsible for inventory, ordering, prioritizing, staffing, handling the money, scheduling, problem solving.
What does a head clerk do if the money doesn’t equal the receipts?
And what decision does an hourly night crew foreman make if a freezer mal-functions? There could be tens of thousands of dollars worth of product at stake, and the solution may not wait until the morning crew comes in.
You ask, “why would the employees ‘deserve’ health, pension, and retirement plans?” I think that’s the wrong question.
Why doesn’t every worker deserve health, pension, and retirement?
In the case of grocery workers, they have a federally guaranteed legal right to join a union, and bargain for these benefits. Why should we question their right to do so?
Now, about the specific wage of cashiers. According to the King Soopers contract, a head clerk can make $16.06. Note that there is likely to be only one head clerk, so this would be the top pay, and available to only one individual on a given shift.
Three classifications offer a wage that is a few cents higher: produce manager, general merchandise manager, and bakery manager. Meats are under a separate agreement.
Once again, my disclosure: i am involved in the effort to get a good contract for grocery workers. I am not in any sense a spokesperson for the union, so i am merely offering my personal opinion here. I am also not an expert in grocery worker classifications, so please take that into consideration.
….I just can’t see these jobs as dangerous or demanding. I’ve not seen a full butcher shop in a grocery store in years. (When I was a kid, they got the beef sides in on hooks. Those guys were butchers!) They take the cut meat out of boxes, tray and wrap it, and put it on display. Once in awhile someone wants a special cut, but for the most part, a no brainer of a job.
The employee who sliced himself up in the deli broke a safety rule. Count on it. When I was in security at the Brown, 90% of the accidents were preventable by following the rules in place. Such as the 15 year house keeper who got stabbed by a hypodermic needle. She broke the rule about not putting your hand in the waste baskets, that’s why they have plastic bags.
None of the jobs are difficult or dangerous beyond the usual tedium or management decisions. When the reefer goes out, they know who to call. This isn’t rocket science.
Having learned here about the terrible two tier system with delayed benefits, I hope the union kicks their stingy asses.
If the meat is already cut and delivered in boxes, then it is simply cut earlier in the process by other union members.
Safeway has traditional meat-cutters. If you’re used to going to King Soopers, you may not have seen the full butcher shops that Safeway retains in its stores. But in both cases, there are also meat distribution plants which have workers who are also members of the union.
We have a difference of opinion; i think many of these jobs are demanding, and some are clearly dangerous.
Concerning whether the injured worker could have broken a safety rule — i wasn’t there; i’ll reserve judgment. But i can see how tempting it is to speculate.
Two tier systems are always bad for working people. They’re typically introduced by convincing an existing workforce that the future workforce will be the only ones to take the hit. But even the older workers pay a price. I’ve frequently heard from first tier workers that they are endlessly training the second tier, because the starting wage is so low (and benefits so slow to come) that there is constant turnover. Two tier systems hinder unity and cooperation, they are unfair, and they can be used by management to play off workers against each other. One of the union’s goals is bringing the second tier up, in an effort to eliminate the two tier system.
Oh, one last mention. We’ve been chatting about King Soopers and Safeway. Don’t want to leave unionized Albertsons workers out of the discussion. They’re in much the same situation, they’re just smaller in number.
Disclosure: i am involved in the effort to get a good contract for grocery workers. I am not in any sense a spokesperson for the union, so i am merely offering my personal opinion here.
It’s, well, often hard and demanding.
The meat that arrives in those boxes is as often as not coming from non-union packing houses. Even the union ones (See: Swift & Co., Greeley) tend to be less than effective.
Between OSHA and the fact that most companies now understand that it is less costly to prevent an accident than replace the worker or such, that person broke a safety rule. Equipment has all kinds of safety devices on it and/or there are procedure to be followed. Guaranteed.
Look, I want the workers to prevail and get better wages and benefits. I just don’t think the public will find much pity factor in their hearts. It’s not deep rock coal mining. The public is in a big anti-corporate, anti fat cat mood. Capitalize on it.
.
They’ve been introduced into Government contracts with two Area Wage Determinations for each locale, High benefits vs. Low benefits.
Two tiers in Civil service, starting in 1984. Huge differences in the retirement systems.
Multiple tiers in the military. Mostly affects retirement and medical benefits.
And now the National Defense Personnel System in DOD makes a continuum of tiers, where wages and bonuses are up to the individual supervisor.
If you want a good retirement plan, join last year, or the year before.
.
Tiered employment, as bad as it is, is the logical outcome of when one group’s wages and benefits far exceed the value of their labor. I, took, would like to be one of those union UAW guys pulling down $30/hr plus great bennies (IIRC, recent discussion here determined that the wages were about that for the long timers.)
But for semiskilled work, that’s ridiculous. If the car companies could still sell and make a profit, well, OK. But they can’t. Starting at $14/hr plus bennies isn’t bad for a HS grad.
I don’t agree.
If workers bring this on themselves by making wages that are too high, does that suggest companies would prefer to pay everyone a median wage, on the principle of fairness? Absolutely not. Given the opportunity, companies will eliminate the higher wage workers and replace them with the lower paid workers.
Here’s an important factor to consider when analyzing two tier: is there any pathway for someone to rise from the second tier to the first tier? Almost never! Typical companies do not voluntarily improve the wages of lower paid workers when they get rid of the higher paid workers; rather, they bank the savings.
The two tier system isn’t anything new. Corporations have hired cheaper workers whenever they have found the opportunity. A century ago, children and women were paid less, and they were hired at a lower wage even when men were not earning premium pay. Why did corporations do that? Because they could get away with it.
If an upper tier is able to temporarily hold onto its wages/benefits, it is only because the company found a way to save labor costs without risking a direct challenge to the existing compensation of that group. The company can accomplish their goals by replacing the higher paid workers with the lower paid, whether through attrition or by other means.
On average, women without union protection are still paid less. (Consider Wal-Mart…) It has nothing to do with men making more; it has everything to do with the effort to reduce labor costs by whatever means possible. But if we used two tier to divide women from men, we’d have marches on corporate headquarters.
What’s different in such arrangements is not that two tier is a new and different concept; rather, two tier has been formalized to discriminate by hire date, rather than by gender, race, nationality, social class, or childhood status. Somehow, society considers this new sort of discrimination (by hire date) acceptable, while discrimination along different social lines would raise an outcry.
And why is there no outcry about the current discrimination? We as a society are more likely to accept two tier when the company persuades, coerces, or tricks a group of workers into formally accepting the arrangement. Society hasn’t yet grasped that the upshot of formalized two tier — even when the company gets a buy-in from one group of workers, exclusive of those who are dis-enfranchised — is the creation and perpetuation of a permanent under class.
Here’s the devil’s bargain that introduces the modern two tier system — the corporation threatens one group of workers with drastic concessions. Then when they’re good and frightened, it offers them a way out: they can keep some of their own pay/benefits for the life of the proposed contract, if they’ll just agree to accept lower pay and benefits for some other group of workers who will make up the second tier.
If the second tier workers represent too large a percentage of the voting pool, the company will get its way by bribing them not to vote against it. That was accomplished at Molson, for example:
http://nomoretiers.org/trojanh…
Two tier based upon hire date is just as pernicious as two tier based upon gender, country of origin, or the color of your skin. We should never defend (or even explain) two tier exploitation of one group of workers, just because another group of workers seems to be more privileged. In my view, that is accepting the very logic of discrimination.
I understand that may not have been intended. But the way we frame these concepts influences how we perceive them, and what we as a society do about them.
And now i’m going to (briefly) challenge another concept — that any group of workers’ wages and benefits can ever far exceed the value of their labor.
There is a mechanism by which owners prosper, and it is the direct result of paying a wage that is lower than the value of wealth created by the worker’s labor. If any group of workers in this economic system EVER earns wages and benefits greater than the value of their labor, they will be laid off, fired, or otherwise replaced. (That’s what bankruptcies do, for example…)
Well-paid workers are not the reason for two tier to exist. Two tier arrangements result from corporate greed, workers’ uninformed acquiescence, and society’s failure to appreciate the exploitative nature of the beast.
But widespread two tier arrangements are not just exploitative; with growing awareness, they are potentially explosive.
best wishes,
richard
when you disagreed with him. Am I the only one who gets that honor?
…I’m not sure what to make of your comment. Richard sounds very, very left philosophically.