Talk:Southern California supermarket strike of 2003–2004

It is requested that an image or photograph of Southern California supermarket strike of 2003–2004 be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in California may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 August 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Organized Labour Mid‑importance

	Organized Labour portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Copyright Issues

{{cv-unsure|User:Lucasbfr|http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Southern_California_Supermarket_Strike&oldid=122334718}}

Asked Lucasbfr to review current article for copyright issues. DirectRevelation 20:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation[reply]

Sounds great now, thanks! -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOT NEUTRAL

This article is not neutral at all, I am changing it. 68.126.62.154 06:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't change it enough! I added claims about pressure from Wal-Mart to represent employers side of dispute. Removed some pro-striker rhetoric about direct non-violence and taking the fight to the streets. I don't take NPOV as far as many here, but this was a concessionary contract so I don't think a rah rah UFCW article is appropriate.DirectRevelation 20:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation[reply]

Although this article still has major problems (see below), I think it is now neutral so I removed the POV flag. If others disagree, please discuss so we can come to an agreement or just fix the page already. DirectRevelation 19:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation[reply]

Speaking as someone who lived in SoCal during the strike (not involved, besides being a supermarket customer), I'm surprised at how much important information is missing about the key events of the strike. The strike was reported in the newspaper and on TV every day, so it was impossible for anyone down there to NOT follow it. What's missing is the mention of how the union made what was seen as desperate gamble (a sign their leverage was fading) by lifting the picket lines at one of the supermarkets, to put more pressure on the others. Then some days or weeks later it came out that there was a secret clause in the agreement between the employers, that in the event of such a stunt by the union, the beneficiary would aid the other supermarkets. When this came out, the union leaders were a laughingstock, and the union rank-and-file were clogging the talk radio phonelines to vent their anger at how they had been taken to the slaughterhouse by their own leadership. The final settlement was NOT the "this side got / the other side got" compromise that this article tries to portray -- everyone living in SoCal knew that while the supermarkets took heavy losses, the union's will was SMASHED, and the workers were utterly DESTROYED financially by the strike. -- ANON

I crossed the line to work the strike, and worked from day two until the very end. This article claims that the stores were stripped bare due to panic over wildfires. As far as I know, none of the stores in my area were stripped bare, and certainly not the store where I worked. We were always well stocked. Since I didn't remember anything about wildfires, I looked them up. There was only one near the end of the strike, in Riverside. The other wildfires occurred later that year, after the strike was over. So I don't think those two claims are correct. Also, my overall impressions align very much with ANON above regarding the outcome, the final settlement, and the impact on the union. I was anti-union then, but working that strike made me more sympathetic to unions than I had been previously. --ANON2 (03/07/2019) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.149.3 (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite by DirectRevelation

Significantly re-wrote article as follows:

Broke into categories (imperfectly).
Presented positions of employers (see POV above)
Corrected spellings (mostly).
All the links to other Wikipedia articles work. (High standards, here.)
Added labour tag and improved cat listing.

Several significant problems remain:

Total lack of sources (except for UFCW web page).
Clarification of parties involved. (I know that the deli workers in SoCal are with the Restaurant union, but I'm not sure if it was called HERE or UNITE HERE at the time of the strike. Also, the butchers are arranged in separate locals in the UFCW and I think they had some specific issues here. Finally, the employERS have some sort of joint bargaining association that should probably be mentioned.)

DirectRevelation 19:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation[reply]

Renamed page to add year. Updated all active links.DirectRevelation (talk) 06:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation[reply]

No detailed information on causes

There is no detailed information here on what financial items actually caused the strike. This would be very valuable information... though one side in this strike certainly would not care to have such information spread. Marionbutts (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sources

I'm surprised to see a page that so many editors have worked on and argued over has not one source. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't suprise me. Why bother to find sources for a 4-year-old regional story? Pointing out that there are no sources takes none of the work and is just as satisfying.RevelationDirect (talk) 03:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teamsters' role!

This article needs more sources and more info in general! Shockingly there is no mention of the teamsters in this article or the solidarity of the teamsters. Neither is the paradoxical failure of UFCW leadership to picket distribution centers (teamsters have specific language in their contracts stating they HAVE THE RIGHT TO NOT CROSS ANY PICKET LINE)and accept the support of the majority of teamsters who were ready to de facto solidarity strike because they (distribution center workers) felt that the fate of the clerks was (and so obviously is!) tied to the clerks'.

I've read numerous accounts about how if UFCW and Teamster leadership coordinated like they should have... they could have virtually shut down the whole SoCAl system. Why did UFCW leadership essentially sabotage the strike? Why did Teamster leadership eventually order the rank and file to not support UFCW? (many teamsters engaged in direct action in support of the clerks without authorization) These questions need to be asked and discussed in this article! Maybe UFCW was too disorganized or incompetent, or maybe they never wanted to win in the first place because they are class collaborationist and care only about dues and not working class emancipation! (not to sound too radical, but come on this is a labor article!)

Teamsters' role!

This article needs more sources and more info in general! Shockingly there is no mention of the teamsters in this article or the solidarity of the teamsters. Neither is the paradoxical failure of UFCW leadership to picket distribution centers (teamsters have specific language in their contracts stating they HAVE THE RIGHT TO NOT CROSS ANY PICKET LINE)and accept the support of the majority of teamsters who were ready to de facto solidarity strike because they (distribution center workers) felt that the fate of the clerks was (and so obviously is!) tied to the clerks'. I've read numerous accounts about how if UFCW and Teamster leadership coordinated like they should have... they could have virtually shut down the whole SoCAl system. Why did UFCW leadership essentially sabotage the strike? Why did Teamster leadership eventually order the rank and file to not support UFCW? (many teamsters engaged in direct action in support of the clerks without authorization) These questions need to be asked and discussed in this article! Maybe UFCW was too disorganized or incompetent, or maybe they never wanted to win in the first place because they are class collaborationist and care only about dues and not working class emancipation! (not to sound too radical, but come on this is a labor article!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.138.224 (talk) 09:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Causes

The sentence: "As Wal-Mart began aggressively opening stores in California, other supermarket chains claimed they were able to undercut local prices because they were non-union and the employees were all new hires. This put pressure on the existing unionized grocery stores to lower their operating costs."

"other supermarket chains" is open ended. Vons? Ralphs? Albertsons? Gelsons? We need sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.185.239.23 (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Southern California supermarket strike of 2003–2004?

After I did some copyedits I realized that the title doesn't match the text, and I've just learned that articles can be moved to fix that, but not by new editors like me. Can somebody take care of this? Timmeredgar (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Causes is so vague

“Causes” really makes wal mart out to be the only villian. From 1990-to the mid 2000’s Trader Joe’s and other non union “hip” stores began dominating a big sector of SoCal grocery.

It wasn’t just big bad and cheap wal mart who burned the middle tier grocery company’s involved in the strike. The industry across all demographics began slighting labor around 2000. 99.91.152.46 (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]