Rhetorical
Elements
Dialogue
Flashback
Setting
Characters
Tone/Voice
Description
Explanation/Example
Process Analysis
Comparison/Contrast
Cause/Effect
Definition
Persuasion
Irony
Audience
Point of View
Opposing View
Structural Elements
Thesis statement
Thesis development
Introduction
Conclusion
Evidence/
Supporting Details
Topic Sentence
Organization
Transitions/Unity
Paraphrase
Summary
Analysis
Mechanics
In-text Citations
MLA Works Cited
Stylistic Elements
Word Choice
Sentence Variety
Active/Passive Voice
Parallelism
Coordination
Subordination
Effective Repetition
Figures of Speech |
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+.
|