Labor vs. 'Wal-Martization'

Washington Post columnist Steven Pearlstein was online to talk about the looming grocery worker strike in the Washington region -- the latest struggle over the "Wal-Martization" of the U.S. economy.

In today's column, he writes that both sides in the grocery workers talks "look to be prisoners not only of their own rhetoric, but of outdated labor-relations strategies that are unlikely to lead to a sustainable new business model."

Pearlstein has written about this theme in recent articles, including "Wal-Mart's Hidden Costs" (Oct. 29). In Monday's edition, The Washington Post provided an overview of the issues at stake as Giant and Safeway workers bargain with the two grocery chains for a new contract.

Pearlstein was online earlier today. A transcript of the discussion is below:

Steven Pearlstein writes about business and the economy for The Washington Post. His columns on the economy appear every Wednesday and Friday.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

________________________________________________

LH in Prince Frederick, MD: As usual today's column raises some very cogent points, especially about market strategies employed by the two key players in our market area. Beyond the short, by necessity statements, what new technology improvements do you see needed? How do you build a flexible workforce (e.g., competency-based pay plans, etc.)in the face of an often intractable union? Excluding a comparison to high-priced niche player, Whole Foods, how do you increase quality and service in Giant and Safeway who already outshine Food Lion and others in these attributes? What other steps do you suggest to rebuild their business model, i.e., take the "offensive" position?

Steven Pearlstein: Good points all. I don't pretend to be the world's expert on this or anything else, so I'm dealing from a limited deck here. The new technology could involve those very small and cheap computer chips that would allow you to wheel your cart through some sort of scanner, which would add up all the prices and allow you to swipe your credit card and be gone. The same technology could be used to "know" what items need to be restocked and retrieve them via robot from the storage area. For some items, you can even imagine use of robots to restock shelves: think of the milk refrigerators. I have no idea about the cost and effectiveness of all this, but I do observe supermarkets remain a very low tech. As for improved service, I agree Safeway and Giant outshine Food Lion, but believe me there is plenty to do to improve the shopping experience, from physical changes to how they sell meat and fish and deli, to learning how to make a decent loaf of french bread. As for pay plans that reward individuals and groups for good performance, this is precisely the sort of stuff that they should be negotiating right now, and while the union has traditionally opposed this on the basis that it leads to favoritism, it is legitimate to ask the unions now whether they might prefer the risk of a bit of favoritism to the risk of having a quarter of Safeway's less profitable stores closed over the next few years.

_______________________

Clifton, VA: Why should I pay higher food costs just so some overpaid, undereducated, lazy backtalking Giant employee can make $18.00 to stock shelves or run a register. It is a minimum wage job. Maybe you can afford to pay these prices with your six figure income but I can't as govt employee. I would rather pay the higher costs for a better product prime beef and first class seafood. The unions are on the losing end of this argument. Just like outsourcing to foreign countries. I don't think the American public is willing to pay the extra cost for union labor at the Giant and US based tech support for Dell. Giant and Safeway should go non union!;

Steven Pearlstein: Well, I guess that's one point of view. Sounds like you're a target Food Lion customer. But I'm sure you'd agree that you'd like to allow the workers at Giant and Safeway to make that decision for themselves, with all the attendant risks and consequences, than having their right to unionize taken away from them.

_______________________

Alexandria, VA: Many supermarket workers are immigrants. Does the continued arrival of large numbers of immigrants increase the supply of people wishing to work in supermarkets at existing salaries?

Would reducing the number of immigrants arriving in Northern Virginia result in higher wages for all existing supermarket workers, including immigrant ones?

Isn't there a contradiction between a Congressman like James Moran supporting immigration at the same time as he writes letters to supermarkets demanding that they pay their workers more?

It seems to me that reducing immigration would have cause supermarket wages (and therefore prices too) to increase, while writng a letter has zero effect, especially when the congressman writing the letter is controversial and not one of the area's opinion leaders.

Steven Pearlstein: The short answer to your question is, yes, the level of immigration probably does have a short term effect on the supply of relatively low-skilled and low-paid labor, and therefore an effect on the price (wages). What that has to do with Jim Moran is beyond me.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: So, when the strike inevitably happens, what should I -- the average shopper -- do? Should I cross the picket line with impunity, side with the workers, hand a copy of your column to both sides??

Steven Pearlstein: I like the column idea. A strike is not certain -- workers have seen the pain suffered by their California colleagues and probably won't be as quick to go out on strike. And the dilemma you face is that if you cross the picket line, you are giving aid and comfort to management, but if you don't and buy your food at a non-union shop, its questionable whether you are helping the unionized workers.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: I'm reading "The Working Poor" by David K. Shipler. He makes a lot of points about the fact that the U.S. economy is driven by a lot of workers filling extremely low-wage jobs. Have you read the book? Any thoughts?

Steven Pearlstein: I've looked at it, but not read it thoroughly. There are a lot of low wage workers in the U.S., and many of them are recent arrivals, by the way. To the degree that low wage workers are just starting out their careers, or their life in the U.S., I don't think that's a bad thing at all. To the degree it is people who are stuck in low wage jobs with little wherewithal to move up the ladder, that's a problem == and a growing one, I suspect. As you may know, I've written about that a lot and think there are things the society, working through the government, could do to widen those opportunities. And I'm not talking about tax free savings and education accounts.

_______________________

Arlington, VA: I've worked in a grocery store the past two years while attending college at night and on weekends. In the near future, these jobs will not pay enough to support anyone, let alone an entire family. Since a growing number of Americans will experience stagnant or declining wages in the future, shouldn't the focus be on creating higher paying jobs, not protecting lower paying, unskilled ones?

Steven Pearlstein: Not sure I think this is an either, or proposition. And what do you mean about protecting lower paying jobs. Listen, one of the dirty little secrets of capitalism until recently was that the corporation was a socialist instrument, redistributing income from the high end to the low end. For complicated reasons having to do with hypercompetition, corporations can no longer do that without jeopardizing their competitive position. And the problem we have is that we haven't come up with alternative institutions, rules, laws, norms of behavior to replace that function, which I still think is a legitimate one if done moderately. Some of us just like living in a society where income gaps aren't as wide.

_______________________

Washington, DC: Steven: It does not appear that it is simply a matter of the employees being expected to pay a small portion of their health care benefits. If you truly dissect what Safeway is trying to do across the country is to totally remove such benefits in a very short time. They are leading the way in the "race to the bottom" to compete with Wal-Mart. It is not that these companies are not making record profits -- it is that they are just not as high as Wal-Mart's. The grocery worker is one of the last lower middle class jobs left for Americans not requiring advanced degrees. Remove health care and pay lower wages and you have thrown hundreds of thousands of Americans in poverty level. How can that be good for America?? Let's try to be clear as to what is good for America vs. good for the stockholder! I support these workers in trying to maintain health care -- hopefully for all Americans -- not just the upper class. I also think you took a little insulting slam at the value of what these workers do. They facilitate the process of providing food that we put on our tables every single day. Is this more valuable to society then writing a column twice a week. Some may argue that it is.

Steven Pearlstein: That's a bit unfair. Look, we don't live in a society where everybody gets paid the same, or even close to it. Other societies have tried that and, well, it just didn't work out. So we let markets set prices, including prices for labor, and while you may think a grocery clerk is more valuaable than, say, a newspaper columnist, the market doesn't. And I'm not sure we want commisars sitting around setting wages based on their private sense of what someone's time is worth. As for medical care, you are just flat wrong. Nobody is trying to take health insurance away from these workers. But I don't know any company that can afford to pay 100 percent of the premium and have very low co-pays and deductible in the current environment, even some of the most paternalistic and wealthy ones like the Washington Post. Nor should they. This kind of first dollar coverage is proven to drive up utilization and costs, which helps explain why Safeway pays as much as $11,000 a year in premium for family coverage for some of its employees. That is way off the charts, and it reflects the ridiculous structure of the health care package.

It would be better to have what you would call "less generous" health plan that includes employee contributions, and then use the entire savings to raise wages. The result would be better for everyone.

As to your comment about these being one of the last lower middle class jobs left, that may be right. But there is a reason for that. The market economy no longer allows companies to stay in business while paying workers much more than the same workers with roughly the same skills and education could earn elsewhere. The old model, as I said before, reflected a transfer of income from wealthier customers to less wealthy workers, in the form of higher prices.

But labor and product and financial markets are not too competitive now to allow that. The result of that competition has been to put the U.S. way ahead of the pack in terms of overall income, productivity, and wealth. Now we need to do a better job of coming up with other mechanisms for redistributing income a bit now that the corporation can't do that.

_______________________

Alexandria, VA: Hi Steven: You write about Safeway and Giant as union companies that are realizing new pressures as competition in the DC area grocers markets heats up. But what about Magruders and Shoppers Food Warehouse? I buy at Shoppers quite frequently - they are unionized, yet have low prices and no automated tellers. Why does this unionized model of low prices, yet good service work here, but not a Giant or Safeway? I think sometimes Giant/Safeway tend to blame their higher prices on the fact that they have to pay high wages, although I think the Shoppers example shows this does not have to be the case.

Steven Pearlstein: I'm not as familiar with Shoppers, but as I wrote the warehouse concept is able to pay union wages. That's because the sales per employee is so high. They are very efficient and productive. Now the problem with that model is that it requires shoppers to travel longer distances between stores -- there aren't that many of them. But if people want convience, which they apparently do, then they are going to have to pay for it by shopping at less productive, smaller, lower-volume neighborhood groceries.

_______________________

Arlington, VA: I am tired of hearing the argument that consumers should pay higher prices in order to appease unions and maintain the "quality" that is homespun Giant and it's rival, Safeway. I will shop where I get the most product for the best price, period. If that means Harris Teeter, BJs, Wegmans, or Wal-Mart, so be it. I refuse to be labeled the "bad guy" because I want value.

The union situation at Giant and Safeway has brought these two institutions to their knees. Employees at these stores have no one but the unions to blame for the mess they're in. The constant greed and deceptive practices that the food unions employ have finally caught up with them.

Steven Pearlstein: I certainly wouldn't argue that you are a bad guy at all. But it is not necessarily true that the unions alone have brought these companies to their knees. First off, they still make money and have large market shares. And it is at least half the fault of management that they haven't changed their business model to reflect the realities of competition from new formats.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: I agree with Barbara Ehrenreich ("Nickle and Dimed") that those who shop at Wal-mart are getting cheap goods at the cost of the ability of people who work there to support their families. However, if you want cheap things, you should know what cost you're really paying. Wal-mart might be evil incarnate to some people but the reason they exist is because people buy their goods. If everyone felt strongly about labor unions and fair wages (more strongly than about getting cheap goods), we wouldn't be having this argument because Wal-mart would no longer have patrons and would cease to exist.

In most of the articles I've read, the people who are striking at supermarkets to keep wages up have been quoted as saying that they shop at Walmart. Cheap goods mean that the store must keep it's costs down. Low wages is a pretty obvious way to do that. People who want to earn 2-3x minimum wage to work at a cash register better not shop at Wal-mart. If they do, I think they've already lost this argument.

Steven Pearlstein: So that is the dilemma. Think of it this way: in a totally closed economy in which all employees are also consumers, higher wages and higher prices would pretty much cancel each other out. But the real world is not so simple and a world in which some people's wages are lower but others not means that there are serious distributional consequences when you have a world of lower wages and lower prices.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: Thanks for your column today. I've long believed that in many of these old-line industries facing low-cost competition (airlines, groceries, etc.) that both sides too frequently forget that the enemy is the competition, not each other.
I'm someone who actually likes to shop at the Giant, because I like to patronize a store with a broad selection of products and where employees are well-paid and professional. When I receive good service (which is frequent), I tell the employee exactly that. When I receive bad service, I tell the management, because I expect them to fix the problem.
Recently, service has started to decline at Giant (as the Post outlined before the holiday season), which is where I have to fault management. Don't they see that cutting service levels is exactly the wrong prescription for both customer and employee satisfaction?
At the same time, why would labor try to convince customers not to shop in their store (as seen in the photo of the Safeway employees) during contract negotiations? Again, management is not the enemy! Instead, I want labor to show me, through good service, why I should patronize their store (and pay a little more money) rather than go down the street to a Wal-Mart or CostCo. Otherwise, they are not worth the extra labor cost to the company, or the extra cost to me.

Steven Pearlstein: Nicely put.

_______________________

Kensington, Md.: Why is the union still talking strike? Didn't they learn ANYTHING from S. Cal?
Don't employees know that S. Cal. employees got NOTHING from that strike, except HUGE financial problems?

Steven Pearlstein: As I said, I think they did take away some lessons from that. But its not true they got nothing. They preserved their pay and no-contribution health plan for existing workers, while selling their future new colleagues down the river. This technique has been used in several contracts now, but I think the time is up on that tactic. Its time for both sides to address the real issues.

_______________________

Alexandria, VA: I'm a displaced small-business manager, now a $24,000/yr employee of a small grocery chain that does very well by pairing up the labor of former members of the middle class with the demands of future ex-members of the middle class.

My observation is that "labor vs. Wal-Mart" has different complexions viewed from within than from without. For 25 years, I didn't quite grasp what unions were for, but they're starting to make sense as one of many tools to slow the sort of "progress" that in 50 years took us from one 40-hour breadwinner to own a home to two 55-hour incomes to accomplish the same thing.

The $45/hr holiday checker is sort of a dumb idea, but so is returning to the robber-baron economy of the 1890's, the logical end-point of our relentless search for a cheaper wedge of brie. Maybe there's room for a meeting of minds, somewhere between those two extremes.

Just a Thought

Steven Pearlstein: And a good thought, at that.

_______________________

Gaithersburg, MD: You state in your article that it is hard to justify paying clerks $20-$30 an hour on Sunday to scan canned peas. Well, what would you just these employees be paid--$5.00 an hour. Or better yet contract out to India and pay $2.00 an hour. This is the metropolitan area it is one of the most expensive places in the country to live. Are you familiar with the term living wage? Better yet do you even care!;!; If shareholders and owners of all companies weren't so greedy, maybe this country would not have such a huge gap between the haves and the have nots!;

Steven Pearlstein: Gee, why don't we set a minimum wage of $30 an hour then. You apparently think this is a good idea. Why don't you consider what would happen if you waived your wand and got what you wished. I don't think your friends at the scanner, however, would like the outcome, because everything they buy would go up in cost and lots of jobs would go overseas. For myself, I believe we need to raise the minimum wage, but not anywhere near $20.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: Health care is becoming the big issue of the future and this strike is only the beginning of the fight for better health care. If, as you say,"Defensive strategies meant to preserve what people already have inevitably lose out," what new path would you suggest union leaders take in order to ensure their members continue to receive the health care benefits they have come to expect and should by all rights have?

Steven Pearlstein: I think you miss the point. Health care provided by employer, yes. Health care that covers the first dollar of every medical expense and paid 100 percent by the employer, no. There is a mentality among some union leaders that once something is won in one contract, that "gain" must be protected at any cost, no matter what the impact on the company and its competitive position. That is an outmoded strategy, in my opinion. It may be that concessions now yield higher pay later. It may be that the structure of compensation can be changed in ways that benefit the enterprise but involve giving up some things and getting others.

_______________________

Fairfax, VA: I've read many of your columns and you always seem to take a fair and balanced approach. Not to put you on the spot Steve, but if this comes down to a strike in the DC area, would you cross the picket line?

Steven Pearlstein: Truth is I do most of my shopping at a non-union shop, Whole Foods. But we do some shopping at the Safeway and I don't know what I'd do. I've taken a pox on both your houses stances in this column, so I guess I'd have to know more about what each side is willing to give before I decided. Cop out answer, I know.

_______________________

Northern VA: I am the spouse of a Giant employee and it has been really sad watching the chain's reputation erode. The new owners could care less about quality, service, or it's employees as is very apparent when you visit your local store. What once were hallmarks under the old owner (courteous service, cleanliness, great prices, a Giant FAMILY atmosphere among customers and employees alike) are gone. Hours are constantly being cut, and morale is at an all time low. Employees should quit trying to make excuses for the company and tell the truth.

You cannot maintain the level of service customers have come to expect when hours are being cut. Sure Wal-mart workers are offered benefits but they are not paid enough to be able to afford them anyhow! Because of this when a Wal-mart Worker goes to hospital, guess who pays for it? It is my understanding that Giant and Safeway workers are being made to pay for the bad investments the parent company made before they acquired them.

Steven Pearlstein: I think you've got it just about exactly right.

_______________________

Washington, DC: If the union won't agree to $5 a week health care premiums, do you think they'd even consider pay for performance?

Steven Pearlstein: As I said, they can either get real and agree to both of those or risk having their jobs go away.

_______________________

Westminster, Md.: Good morning, I am an employee who has been working in the Giant dry grocery warehouse in Jessup for 18 years now. Your article this morning expressed just how the last week I have been discussing with my fellow workers that management should concentrate more on getting customers into the stores and not solely on destroying the morale of the employees that work for them. The years that I have been working for Giant -- especially since Royal Ahold has taken over -- I have seen a considerable number of changes, some good and some that had good intentions but created adverse effects.

People complain about the quality, when they go to the store to buy sale items they are given a rain check because their sold out of the item. They have changed some items to these off the wall brands that people don't recognize. The produce is not what it once was. The bakery items don't seem as fresh as they used to be.

This company needs to learn to get along with the Wal-Mart's. They should concentrate on finding ways to entice customers in to the stores. With what made Giant what it once was by listening to the customers wants and need. Making the customer feel like he or she is heard and considered for the products that they stock. They need to justify to the community why they should shop there, because they get help when they need it, their quality is above the rest, they not only carry ketchup but they have multiple brands as well as all the different kinds of flavors of that brand. I'm just a warehousemen it doesn't take a rocket scientist for management to reflect back 10 years or so and see what had made Giant Food the number one grocery company in the area. Take those things and incorporate them with the modern technologies of today and they still can be efficient and give the customer what they want and need.

Steven Pearlstein: I'm so glad you wrote in to say that. Thanks for your courage in sharing it.

_______________________

Landover, MD (Giant HQ): I am a consultant working for Giant Food. We are in the process of making contingency plans should the strike occur. Does anyone really understand the costs associated with being a union shop? This company was not founded to provide jobs for union leaders. This company is supposed to make money, thats what companies do. Food is big business and the competition is trampling us. No one pays retail anymore, right? What goes through the mind of a union boss when he recommends that workers go on strike? It costs jobs, the good jobs that this economy needs.

Steven Pearlstein: Well, the problem with this argument is that if you play it out over the next decade, the good jobs won't be so good any more. But there is nothing inevitable about that if Giant and its unions would get together and come up with a plan to build market share smartly and adopt pay structures and work rules that allow that to happen.

_______________________

Takoma Park, MD: Hello, Mr. Pearlstein - I look forward to your columns with your economic insights. I think today's column on the Safeway and Giant labor negotiations is well-targeted. I have been shopping at Safeway for 10 years and appreciate the convenience, selection, and service. On the other hand, I ask myself whether I want to keep paying $5 or $6 for a box of cereal, for instance. I think management is doing what it needs to do in trying to control costs. I also saw business at this Safeway drop off sharply after a Whole Foods Market opened down the street. I also think that if I received a simple and sincere thank-you more often at check-out I would be more inclined to support the higher wages these union workers receive. If they end up striking, I will probably go to the local independent grocery store a few blocks from home. They don't have as wide a selection, but I discovered when shopping there once after a snowstorm that I would save a lot of money. Once I switch my habits and start supporting non-union workers, I don't know if I would go back to Safeway. I hope Safeway and Giant workers are giving some thought to public relations as well as their own economic well-being.

Steven Pearlstein: So there we have a little market research that Mr. Safeway and his employees should keep in mind.

_______________________

Mitchellville, Maryland: One of the most expensive benefit costs for any employer is health insurance. Giant and Safeway provide excellent health insurance for their employees. Wal-Mart and other non-union employers provide little if any health insurance. As a result, they have an unfair business advantage. However, what non-union companies don't provide is paid for by someone -- usually taxpayers. Do you believe there should be a Federal policy that requires all employers to provide health insurance for their employees to prevent one business from gaining unfair competive advantage at the expense of taxpayers?

Steven Pearlstein: Yes, very strongly. As long as we maintain our employer-based health system in the U.S., we should require all companies to pay half the cost of a barebones family health plan for all workers. I've written that before and we can't say it often enough.

_______________________

Chantilly, Va.: I, like other washingtonians, shop at different grocery stores like Trader Joes and Whole Foods. I do it for the variety of products not the the low prices. If the 2 big chains like Giant and Safeway carry a more variety of food than the usual conservative variety, then maybe they wont be the in the red much.

Steven Pearlstein: The question of how many brands to carry of each type of item, and which brands, is one that the Safeways and Giants have to address, no question about it.

_______________________

Cleveland Park -- DC: Perhaps, you description of Whole Foods as higher-priced would not hold in Cleveland Park. Giant here is extremely expensive, often exceeding Whole Foods price for the lower quality items. That is especially true for produce. I would think that this is one of the reasons Giant is losing to competition at least here.

Steven Pearlstein: The Cleveland Park giant is exhibit No. 1 of the arrogance and stupidity of Giant Food. It's one of the richest neighborhoods in the world and for years their customers have been complaining about quality and service and selection, and all they did was moan about how they couldn't find real estate. This gave a big opening to Whole Foods.

_______________________

Bowie, MD: With all this whining about jobs, why hasn't anyone pointed to the fact that if people directed a portion of their "disposable income" towards education/moving forward, instead of just expecting the world to give them a handout like so many do expect, that they'd be far better off long-term? I'm finishing my 2nd degree and going for a MS and an MBA starting next year - I may not have as much free time as my friends with no education, and not quite as much to buy DVDs every week, but my salary/responsibilities/marketability continue to increase each year. Has the concept of a trade-off or compromise been lost on most of the country?

Steven Pearlstein: The point is a valid one, but be careful not to think that everyone has the time, energy, intellectual wherewithal, tuition money, knowledge about how to navigate through the world, that they can follow your lead.

_______________________

Wash DC: Do you get paid overtime for your Sundays?

Steven Pearlstein: No.

_______________________

Arlington, VA: Giant and Safeway reap what they sow. The problem with their prices are, they jack everything up sky high ($5 for 8 hot dogs as an example), then make you get a card for low prices on some things.

I'd rather just shop somewhere that prices consistently, rather than be caught up in that stupid game. Union or non-union.

Steven Pearlstein: Me, too.

_______________________

Alexandria, VA: OK, so what's REALLY going to happen?

I think you've pegged it by asking whether neighborhood stores can be big stores.

My guess would be that the major players will decide that it's easier to join their competition than beat them. They'll cut to half as many big stores and make them bigger. Then they'll spawn non-union subsidiaries which build small neighborhood stores to re-hire the union help they just cut loose. Not a value statement, just a guess at the most likely course.

Steven Pearlstein: You could very well be right, although I don't know if the non-union subs will work.

_______________________

Clifton, VA: Perhaps the person who considers anyone working at a union grocery store to be "overpaid, lazy and backtalking" might consider brining his concerns to those workers in person. I happen to work at the Giant in Clifton, VA and I would really love to meet this person who seems has a real disdain for the working class. So would a few of my coworkers...

Steven Pearlstein: Don't clear your calendar in anticipation of a visit any time soon....

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I have been a worker for Giant Food for over 17 years. Comments have been made that we make too much money just to scan peas over a scanner, but we didn't ask for our hourly wages when hired with these chains. This is what brought us to them. Some consider this a lot of money for non college graduates. Believe me, we work just as hard as anyone else working today. The TV as say that "They" are only asking about $5.00 for single and $15.00 for family a week for benefits. What they are not telling you is that any increases in the future will be paid by the employee and the company will not make any additional increases for health care. We, the employees don't mind paying for benefits, but there should be a cap. Also, they are talking about a $1000 - $2000 deductible a year for coverage with either a $200 - $500 bonus or .10 - .25 an hour raise for the next four (4) years. We have never received a cost of living increase. Now let's be realistic, how do they expect us to pay more in benefits with no cap and not give us a decent raise. We didn't ask to be paid what we were making when we started, it was offered, that is why a lot of us went to work for them. It is because of most of the employee relationships with customers that these two chains were where they were four yers ago. They've cut hours, raised prices and expect us to do the same job under more stress. There is more stress because we are now doing two - three different jobs than we were and they expect great customer service. Even customers have noticed the change. Giant use to be a family. And last but not least, they want to stop paying into our retirement completely and we have to open our own 401K plan without company putting anything into it. Now who f------,who.

Thank You

Steven Pearlstein: Many good points there. You are suggesting that the workers are willing to be flexible but management is not. But I'm not aware that is the real situation at the bargaining table. And certainly there should be a cap -- you are right about that -- as long as it isn't close to zero.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: Do you realize most employees would be willing to contribute to their health insurance in lieu of a strike but they are totally at the union's control, and are fed so much propaganda FROM UNION EMPLOYEES, THAT THEY really have no say in their own fate?

Steven Pearlstein: No I didn't.

_______________________

Upper Marlboro, MD : Mr. Pearlstein,

I do agree a lot of the points in your article. However, I do take issue with the comment- justifying paying a clerk $20-$30 an hour scanning peas. I work part-time at Safeway and the clerks deserve every penny they receive. I work in a federal agency full-time and my stress level at Safeway is greater. I challenge you to work on a job where people yell at you because we are sold out of milk, speak to you rudely because you work a blue collar job, cameras are everywhere on the job because management doesn't trust you, learning 100's of plu codes produce items, standing on your feet all day lifting gallons of water, dog food, mega sizes of laundry detergent, and the constant threat of robbery. Why do I do it?? Mainly because of the reasons pointed out by you in your article-pay, benefits, and bonus Sundays.

Steven Pearlstein: I think there are probably lots of people who would be happy to do the difficult job you describe for less than $20 an hour, even on a Sunday. Many of them, in fact, do much more physically demanding jobs for much less Monday through Friday. Do they deserve more? Well, again, if we get into substituting our moral and ethical judgements for what people deserve, rather than letting the market set the rate on the basis of supply and demand, it gets to be a slippery slope.

_______________________

Burke, VA: It seems like, after reading all of the comments, that unless Giant (and Safeway) does something to get with economic realities of business in this area, we are going to throw them in the heap of Washington-based companies that failed to compete when the market changed - Ralieghs, Woodies, Hechingers...

Steven Pearlstein: Amen. Folks, our time has gone, there are literally dozens of others whose comments we didn't get to. A great chat. See you next week.

_______________________