I can see why the Green St. store is important (location), because that
might be shorter trip for many Champaign residents. However, it seems
logical another outfit could buy that store (IGA or County Market, for
example) if the location gets significant traffic.
I'm not being critical as much as being curious.
I just called, and after a couple of automated attendent stages, got a
live representative. He didn't know anything about it, but entered
what I had to say into their automated tracking system.
I also did some web searching, and finally found an email address for
the Jewel parent company, American Stores, (feed...@amstr.com), and
sent my sentiments there. I eventually got a response directing me back
to the local manager. But maybe it wouldn't hurt to email there some
more.
For one thing, they're about the only store in town where the
employees are unionized. All other things being equal, I prefer
to shop where employees have some voice.
--
Bob Shair rms...@delphi.beckman.uiuc.edu
Open Systems Specialist Champaign, Illinois
/* Not employed by or representing the University of Illinois */
>I can see why the Green St. store is important (location), because that
>might be shorter trip for many Champaign residents. However, it seems
>logical another outfit could buy that store (IGA or County Market, for
>example) if the location gets significant traffic.
>I'm not being critical as much as being curious.
What I heard was that the parent company planned to change the
entire location into a larger Osco that would stand alone. I might be
mistaken - perhaps they only want to improve the Osco store that is there
now and actually jettison the other space. However, if the entire thing
turns into an Osco, there will be no supermarket on the site.
Maiko Covington
>For one thing, they're about the only store in town where the
>employees are unionized.
Whee. They hate it, you know; my brother worked there in the
past, and he found it incredibly annoying and useless to be in the union.
'Twas part of the reason he quit.
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@uiuc.edu)
--
<URL:http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/tskirvin/> Skirv's Homepage <*>
<URL:http://www.killfile.org/dungeon/> The Killfile Dungeon
> Whee. They hate it, you know; my brother worked there in the
>past, and he found it incredibly annoying and useless to be in the union.
>'Twas part of the reason he quit.
Was he full time? My sister did full time supermarket work and
she said the general climate was one where the full timers appreciated the
union and the part timers hated it because they didn't make enough money
to make the dues seem worthwhile. It seems at her store (another American
markets one) they were charging everyone the same dues. Dunno how it is
now, that was a while ago.
Maiko Covington
>tski...@uiuc.edu (Tim Skirvin) writes:
That's how it was when I was a part-timer at a restaurant that was a part
of a grocery store in St. Louis. I had to pay standard union dues
that were not proportionate to my income - it was a monthly amount.
All it got me was a forced break every few hours that they actually
deducted from my timecard, whether I took the break or not. Oh, and
I believe they had some union group health insurance that I didn't
take advantage of, as I was 18 and in high school at the time.
I'm sure if there were ever a union election, they would carefully
time it to exclude the part time kids who were in school.
>> Whee. They hate it, you know; my brother worked there in the
>>past, and he found it incredibly annoying and useless to be in the union.
>>'Twas part of the reason he quit.
> Was he full time?
Part time. And yes, that was part of the reason it didn't agree
with him, though not all of it - the entire benefit for him was to laugh
at how much money they took...
Anyway, I still haven't figured out what's so terrible about
hiring non-union people. If they don't want to join the union, why force
them to? It's their loss...or something...
> Anyway, I still haven't figured out what's so terrible about
>hiring non-union people. If they don't want to join the union, why force
>them to? It's their loss...or something...
One of the usual arguments is that any benefits won by the union
end up being applied to all employees in a given category, union or not.
Setting it up this way is part of the bargaining to be sure things ARE in
fact applied. Hence the desire to make all the employees pay their
"fair share" of the cost for lobbying for the benefits. So, you have
employees not in the union paying some amount of money for "non-membership
fees" (I forget what this is actually called), at which point they might as
well join the union and get voting rights if they are being made to pay
some dough anyways.
If there is a union, I do think that prorated dues are a good idea.
They could also limit the union to certain job categories, I guess, but
generally the unions are larger than that (which might itself be a peeve)
and there are always a few people who do what is usually a part-timer's job
for full time (or 39 hours, if management isn't wanting to hire full-timers
for that position) and would want membership. Part-timers could be exempt
from the union entirely but then you end up with those situations where
they hire people to work 39.5 hours a week. Perhaps they could prorate the
dues based on things such as if you have outside insurance, etc.
Then again, the company is also huge. Jewel supermarkets in Illinois
and Lucky's supermarkets in California are the same company. Checkers at
Lucky's get to watch Jewel training videos. Osco is the same as Sav-On. Even
their advertisements are the same, with the substitution of the appropriate
name of the supermarket/drugstore.
The signage is different, but it's really just all the same...
Maiko Covington
1-800-JEWEL 61 or 1-800-539-3561
feed...@amstr.com