The Los Angeles supermarket strike seems to be ending with a vote and a whimper this weekend. The whole thing looks like a lose/lose situation for the three supermarket chains involved (Ralphs, Vons and Albertsons) because they lost hundreds of millions of dollars, and for the union because they lost months of wages and only wound up turning a terrible offer into a slightly less-terrible offer. Much of the public lost too, because the markets will try to make back that lost money somehow, and also because if you went into a Ralphs during the strike, you probably got lousy service and maybe even spoiled food.
So if all those parties lost, who won? Non-striking markets like Trader Joe's and Gelson's seem to have profited. Last night, we stopped in a Gelson's and there was a sign out front that said something like, "We appreciate that the strike at other markets prompted you to shop here. We hope that our superior service and food will keep you coming back." Based on my experience, that's not even hot air. Gelson's has long been a much better market than Ralphs, Vons or Albertsons. It will be interesting to see how much of their business they lose back to those other chains.
What I find sad is that the union seems to have caved to the old two-tier negotiating strategy. This is unfortunately common in labor relations. Management offers a devastating package of rollbacks and reduced benefits. The union panics and braces for a fight to the death. Then Management comes back and offers, in effect, "We'll let you keep most (not all) of what you have…but there will be no increases and you'll have to agree to a two-tier wage structure, meaning that new hires in the future will get stuck with the lower salaries and less health insurance." And the union, to save its current skin, accepts. I understand why after months of lockout and picketing, the union would take such terms but I think it's a shame. Given this country's "jobless recovery," this is not a good time for that class of labor, and I suspect it will get worse.