Replies

We are sympathetic to the grocers' concerns about their ability to compete with nonunion competitors such as Wal-Mart. However, making health care unaffordable for workers at unionized grocers is the wrong answer to the problem. The right answer is to make health care affordable for workers in all workplaces by requiring reasonable contributions toward health insurance from all employers and their employees.

Oh, I get it ... the solution is not within the employer's grasp. The solution is in Washington. Now THIS is a well thought out piece. So, why isn't this author suggesting that the strikers go picket in front of Walmart instead?

Also, what is really wierd about this whole strike thing, and what this writer misses, is that the strikers are basically encouraging people to go to all the "non-union" stores to shop while they strike in front of the same stores that have been unionized. Weird logic

Requiring contributions toward the cost of health insurance is not just "pie in the sky," but now part of California law. SB2, California's Health Insurance Act of 2003, will protect what supermarket and other workers already have as well as cover a million uninsured working Californians. Starting in 2006, SB2 requires that employers with 200 or more employees contribute toward the costs of health insurance for workers and their dependents. By largely taking health benefits off the bargaining table, SB2 will create a more level playing field among employers, and a healthier workforce for California.

So, all Walmart grocery workers will have health care in 2006 as well? i.e. it will cost you more to shop at Walmart in California than anywhere else in the country. BUT, not to worry, we still have more illegal immigrants than any other state so it should all come out in the wash!! < /sarcasm >