Retail Clerks, with hands tied, settle on contract

Scan page 5

S.F. retail clerks were kept uninformed of contract negotiations.

A new three-year contract was ratified by members of the Department Store Employees Union, Local 1100, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW), in San Francisco on July 30.

The voting was by mail ballot, and of those who voted, approximately 80 percent voted "yes" and 20 percent voted "no" on the employers' so-called "final offer." The contract covers employees at Macy's and Emporium stores, who are the majority of the union.

The 3700-member union is the second largest in San Francisco and is one of the few unions in the country of organized department store employees. The union struck for six weeks in 1984, and the employers got only a modified two-tier contract. The 1984 strike forced the employers to retreat from their initial union-busting proposals.

"Best possible offer?"

The leadership of Local 1100 is calling the new contract the best possible without a strike. The new contract, however, is concessionary, and the negotiating process was one that omitted the membership.

The 1987 negotiations began with outlandish union-busting proposals from the employers. For example, the employers wanted the right to fire an employee "if any company rule or policy was violated, but not limited to that."

The 24-member union negotiating committee, which was appointed by the Local 1100 leadership, consistently took a position of "no concessions." The general consensus was that members did not want to strike for gains but, if necessaryespecially if provoked by the employer—would fight determinedly to keep what the union had struck over in the past. The employers' outrageous first "final offer" was rejected by a 91 percent "no" vote in mid-June.

Unfortunately, what happened next is good lesson on how not to negotiate union contract.

Secret negotiations

After the rejection of the first company offer, UFCW international representatives stepped in. With the cooperation of Local 1100 President Leslie Rainey, they circumvented the negotiating committee and began secret negotiations with the employers; secret, secret, that is, from the membership.

For two weeks, neither the negotiating committee nor the membership saw their leadership or knew the location of bargaining talks. This was quite a surprise move. The next two weeks of secret negotiations had a demoralizing impact on the members. No longer did the negotiating committee serve as a conduit of Karen Schieve was a member of the 1987 Local 1100 negotiating committee.

MACYS/EMPORIUM MUIOELIMUN SOME EMPLOYIS UMON LOCAL = 1100 information all aspects of negotiations.

Members of the negotiating committee had to tell the truth. They had no idea what! was going on; no idea what they were gaining or losing at the bargaining table; no idea of the likelihood of a strike.

The few leaflets that were distributed via the union staff contained, at best, only vague information. One leaflet, seeking to justify the secret talks, even blamed the negotiating committee for the breakdown of previous negotiations!

During these two crucial weeks, there was not one rally; not one informational picketline; not one event or meeting organized to involve the membership in a serious manner.

Bureaucracy organizes defeat

To cover themselves, the UFCW international union did begin a "customer pledge card" campaign. Macy's and Emporium customers were asked to sign cards saying that in case of a labor dispute, they would not shop at the affected stores. As far as it goes, such a request from the public is in order.

The problem is that this tactic became the main strategy for getting a new contract, and was used in lieu of mobilizing the membership and reaching out to the entire Bay Area labor movement. This pitiful attempt at "action" did not, as expected, excite an already deflated membership.

The result of the secret negotiations was that, at the end of July, the members were told that the employers' final "final offer" was to be voted on by mail ballot. Traditionally, in Local 1100, contract decisions are made by one or two days of mass meetings where questions are asked and points of view debated. At the conclusion of these meetings the contract is accepted or rejected by secret ballot.

This time no meetings were held to explain or answer questions regarding the employers' offer. Many members were so confused over the employers' "legalese" language that they chose not to vote—never mailing in their ballot. Only 67 percent of the members mailed back their ballots.

Concessions without a fight The employers got some of their most sought-after takeaways. New hires are on a three-tier for Sunday premium pay and health and dental benefits. Maternity benefits were cut from one year's leave to four months. Sick pay was reduced. All members lost Washington's birthday as a holiday. Working on Sundays or holidays is no longer voluntary and will be filled according to inverse seniority.

New hires into "big ticket" items will have their monthly commission checks greatly reduced. The establishment of the six-day work week at straight time (if under 40 hours) and all varieties of hourly shifts was achieved by the employer.

Only one classification of workers (of which there are many) received a 10-centsan-hour wage increase for each of three years. Clerical workers obtained a 20-centsper-hour wage increase.

The employers also used the "lump sum" bonus instead of real hourly increases. The problem with "lump sums" is that they do Joe Ryan/Socialist Actior not enter into an employee's base pay. This means that vacation pay, sick pay, etc., which are based on the hourly rate, will suffer. In addition, "lump sums" do not accumulate year after year to add to a worker's hourly rate-like real wage increases.

Need new leadership

Leslie Rainey, Local 1100 president, argued that she got the best possible contract without a strike. There are at least two fatal flaws in her assessment.

If the number one concern of unions is to avoid strikes at alt costs, even if it means serious concessions contract after contract, then workers are in deep trouble.

The labor movement was built by workers and their leaders who fought for and struck over higher wages and better working conditions. For years, Local 1100 maintained the best union contract in the United States for department store employees because periodically-when forced to-the union took on the bosses. It is only the real threat of a strike-plus striking— that can produce a good contract.

Secondly, the so-called "best possible offer" was secured without any serious attempt at organizing and mobilizing the membership. Imagine the improvement of a "final offer" if the leadership actually used the militancy of the workers to seriously threaten a fightback.

It is important for all union members who suffer setbacks that they not blame themselves, other union members, or the unions for such defeats. It is clear that workers need a leadership that is not willing to avoid a strike out of fear of putting up a serious fight.