For this assignment, you will choose as your focus a current (within the last year) city, state, or national issue.  Read the material (journal, magazine, newspaper, interview, Internet source) you gather from two opposing sides of this issue, formulate a position on the topic, and construct a formal argument in defense of your stance.

    As a democratic society, we are a country known to voice our opinions. In various ways, we can exercise our ability to let our stance be known. Whether it is about discrimination, unfair job situations, or insufficient pay, we are entitled to the right to let our opinion be heard. In Southern California, supermarket employees are the best recent examples of the First Amendment. The First Amendment states that “congress shall not make no law abridging the freedom of speech or the right of the people peaceably to assemble; and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance” (Find Law par 1). Local southern California supermarket employees (better known as United Food and Commercial Workers, UFCW) are battling with the supermarket chains to continue paying for their medical benefits. These employees are fighting back by going on strike and asking customers to not shop at these supermarkets for the duration of the strike. For many of these employees, their jobs at these supermarkets are not just for the salary; it is their career and, some have worked there for numerous years. For these employees, making at most $37,000 a year full time, not having to pay for medical insurance was a relief.  But when three major supermarkets decided to have their employees pay for the medical insurance they were once entitled to, employees became outraged and fought back, by striking.

    These three major supermarket chains, Safeway Inc., (which owns Vons and Pavilions stores), Ralphs (owned by Kroger Co.) and Albertsons, have cut back UFCW’s medical benefits. Before, with the previous contract, these stores took full responsibility for their employees (including family members) health coverage by paying for hospital stays, prescription drugs, and medical visits. Now, the supermarkets are asking their employees to pay at least $5.00 for individual health coverage, and anywhere from $10.00 $15.00 for each additional family member, per week.

    In total “859 Vons, Ralphs, Pavilions and Albertsons supermarkets are affected by the strike” (Cleeland et al. par 5), totaling more then 70,000 workers at these stores. AU in all, what the union requests does not seem completely unreasonable. For those that help provide for their families through this job, this health care cut is a major drawback. They were accustomed to not paying for coverage, which considerably helped them in times of financial crisis. “If the economy is in such a struggle, why take it out on the employees and cut one of our most beneficial aspects of working for their company” ("Negotiations Fail" par 11) asks Barbara Stammer, an employee at Vons for eleven years. Stammer goes on to state the alternative these supermarkets could take: “If they want us to pay for our medical benefits, then why not increase our hourly rate? So that this way, we will not have such a struggle?” ("Negotiations Fail" par 11).

    Before the striking had even begun, the UFCW representatives met with the three major supermarket chains executives and after nine hours of negotiating, the meeting was called to quits last Saturday, October 1. Rick Icaza, president of UFCW 770, said that during the Saturday negotiations, the union offered various alternatives to a new contract, but the chains were not listening to the union: “Maybe these chains maybe wanted us to strike. They want to cut our benefits and give nothing else to compensate for it. It is basic corporate greed” (Cleeland et al. par 18).

    The UFCW was petitioning in a new contract for these supermarket chains to continue paying for health care plans,  and additionally, provide a wage increase of 50 cents per hour the first year, and 45 cents the next two years. Unfortunately, that new contract was repeatedly denied.

    These supermarket chains are blaming the poor economy and saying that the only way possible to not be affected by it is if they freeze wages and cut health care benefits. The supermarkets have said that their offer is reasonable given the current state the economy is in: “We gave it every effort possible, but it was no use. We understand why they are upset, but instead of reasonably proposing new ideas to us, they are outside picketing, and forcing us to lose our business” (Cleeland et al. par 7), says Ralphs spokesperson Terry O’Neil. The companies that operate these three major supermarkets, that are all covered under the same contract, had said that they would lock out their union workers, only to show unity among the supermarket chains.

    Although paying a little extra a month might not seem like a huge cutback for some, it is important to these employees. They are paid up to $18.00 an hour, but when an employee who has children to take care of needs that extra money at the end of the month, they will not have it because it has to go to their medical care. For these union workers, it is their career and only stable income. Many employees chose to work for these supermarket chains because of the aspect of paid medical benefits. So with no actual and justifiable cause for the benefit cut, why is it being done?

    America is known for the fact that everyone has the opportunity to voice their opinion. This is exactly what the union members are doing. They are using their “freedom of speech” by “peaceably assembl[ing]” and letting the government know their “grievances” (Find Law par 1). Many customers are supporting their stand and not crossing the picket lines, although for some, it means shopping at more expensive supermarkets. “I hope the workers win, and I don’t mind paying a little more to get their usually great service” says David J. Sanchez, customer at the Vons in Sherman Oaks (par. 2). Obviously, if these medical benefits were not important to them, they would not stand out there and risk their jobs. We are all taught to stand up for what we believe in, even if others do not agree. Many do not agree with these strikers. But they are still out there voicing their opinion. And that is always the right thing to do.

Works Cited

Cleeland, Nancy,  Jeff Leeds, and Hector Becerra. “Grocery Workers On Strike Markets."   Los Angeles Times 12 Oct
        2003: A.I+

“Find Law: US Constitution: First Amendment” <http://www.caselaw.1p.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment0l/>

“Negotiations Fail: Grocery Clerks Go On Strike." 12 Oct 12 2003.
        <http://abelocal.go.com/kabc/news/101203_jiw_grocery_str&e.htnll>

Sanchez, David. “Letters to the Times: Workers’ On Strike Over Health Costs”. Los Angeles Times 15 Oct 2003: B. 12+.

Writing Task

Essay #2   "America, Land of the Free" by Chantel Nercessian

1.    How does Nercessian organize her argument?

2.    List Nercessian’s most important reasons why we should support union actions like the recent strike.
        How does she support her reasons?

3.    Describe the tone of  Nercessian’s essay. Find word choices and phrases that indicate her tone.    

4.    Examine the last sentence of the conclusion. How persuasive is it?

5.    How is outside evidence used to support the argument? Do the in-text citations make it easy for the reader to
        obtain information from the Works Cited page?

6.    Do you fine Nercessian’s argument convincing? Why or why not?