"Doyel has said her company currently pays more than 90 percent of health coverage costs. Ralphs workers hired before 2004 pay nothing toward their premiums and those hired later pay either $7 a week for single coverage or $15 a week for family coverage." - excerpt from Washington Post article.
Am I missing something? I work for a public company and I have to pay a little for my health insurance. The amount all depends on the plan I choose (HMO,PPO, deductible). It would be a small chunk of my paycheck (close to $300 a month or so), but I wouldn't complain, if you were to buy your own insurance for a family, you could pay upwards of $1000 or more a month. (Since my husband currently has our insurance, I don't have to pay for the medical but we are covered under my insurance for dental and vision).
To me I am not sympathetic. If the were striking for something that was causeworthy (a made up compound word) I might. This to me is not causeworthy, in my opinion. If the grocery stores were making you work in the dark, giving people who used to make $20 down to minimum wage or something like that maybe, but not because you have to pay a little of an insurance premium.
In a world where there are choices and better "non-union" grocery stores out there, as well as a "high" unemployment rate. I am not sympathetic. The union box stores are continually losing money, they are not the only guys on the street anymore, it is a miracle that they offer what they do to their employees these days, it is not like they are an oil company or something. Wasn't the strike of 03-04 enough? Do you agree? Are unions useful in this industry anymore or is it just another bullying conglomerate?
Disclosure: I do shop my occassional Albertsons and Vons but lately I been shopping at Keils and Fresh and Easy so if they do strike, I probably won't notice much.
