Coverage of Berkeley Bowl Union in local weeklies

Bowl Of Discontent - A Really Good Article about the Berkeley Bowl Union Struggle in the SF Guardian
http://www.sfbg.com/38/04/news_bowl.html

3 Letters Printed in the East Bay Express in Response to a Really Horrible Article Written in the Express
http://www.eastbayexpress.com

"Bowling for the Bottom Line," City of Warts, 9/24

Antiunion hype dolled up as lifestyle reporting

Thanks for an article that simultaneously manages to imply that workers who know about collective bargaining are suspect and illegal union-busting tactics are an acceptable approach to labor-management relationships, and posits that the success of local businesses depends entirely on the personality of the owner. This attitude also explains the improbable citation of an architect as an expert on the grocery business.

"Bowling for the Bottom Line" is a sorry antiunion screed masquerading as a lifestyle piece. While eulogizing the boho lifestyle of Berkeley Bowl shoppers, and pitying their death-defying waits in the checkout line, author Chris Thompson seems to have forgotten that some people are workers, too, and that the quality of their treatment as workers says as much about the Bowl as the quality of the shopping experience there.

Thompson's piece is underlain by the pernicious ideas that good workers would not want to organize a union. This theme crops up as "introducing an industrial model of labor relations to the [Berkeley Bowl] threatens its very identity," and the pullquote, "these kinds of businesses, because they're so unique ... tend to get destroyed when they unionize." The second quote is especially offensive because it comes from an architect who is not only a consultant to Bowl management -- hence not impartial -- but who shouldn't be expected to know anything about this issue based on his professional qualifications.

Thompson elaborates on the threat that unions pose: It's part of the Bowl's "labor crisis" that employees are "young, politically active college students ... exactly the sort of employees who had the phone number for the United Food and Commercial Workers union in their Rolodexes." What's under suspicion here? Are workers not supposed to have Rolodexes-- those sit on the executive desks -- or just not have union contacts? And who does Thompson think should have a phone number for the United Food and Commercial Workers, if not people who are working in the food and commercial sector?

Thompson describes the union's "hardball" tactics, painting a story where the business owner is the underdog and the union the heavy. He somehow manages to create the impression of parity while glossing over that fact only one side is actively breaking the law in this dispute -- and that's the management. If Thompson wants to see Bowl owner Glen Yasuda as sympathetic, you think he'd have a hard time reconciling that with Yasuda's choice to hand over labor discussions to an infamous union-busting law firm that strong-arms workers in intense closed-door meetings and threatens "Big Trouble" for signing a union card. Somehow, Thompson remains uncritical while chronicling, in his terms, "the same old antiunion tactics honed by a century of labor strife."

Feeling a need to channel the zeitgeist of "labor-friendly Berkeley" perhaps, Thompson does recognize that popular, idiosyncratic local businesses such as Cody's Books can thrive with workers organized in a union, but then Thompson credits the success of Cody's to the owner. Isn't it obvious that by contributing their work that all the workers in a business, whether unionized or not, are making a huge contribution to its success? Hasn't it taken years of hard work by Cody's unionized employees to keep the business successful? Why does Thompson give them no credit, instead choosing to view their unionized status as an aberration?

Ultimately, Thompson says, the future of the Berkeley Bowl depends entirely on who may replace Yasuda in ownership. Yasuda's contribution to the Bowl is certainly large, but the future rests also with the work of Bowl employees. Their recent walkout only demonstrates one concrete aspect of this; the "commodified boho lifestyle" Thompson wrings his hands over losing is created every morning as much by the workers who stock the shelves as by Yasuda who contracts for the produce. Far from Thompson's conclusion that unions threaten Berkeley's character as a boho shopping mecca, Berkeley cannot retain its soul if, like Thompson, it refuses dignified recognition of workers' rights to form a union and bargain collectively for what is fair.
Raphael Sperry, San Francisco

Walk the walk, Berkeley

If Berkeley Bowl is such a friendly, family-run business, then they wouldn't need to hire a hardcore, union-busting law firm. Their charitable "family" nature would speak for itself. But I guess maybe they wasted their money on a hefty retainer, since Chris Thompson is willing to wave the union-busting banner for them!

The fact is that Berkeley Bowl can afford to expand to another location and still neglect their current (and future) employees. They have plenty of money; they are just not willing to spend it on being fair to their labor pool. What's sad is not the loss of a "small, family-run" business. What's the real tragedy is yet another Bay Area employer who has become too greedy for his own good. Growth while leaving behind those that helped make it possible is not moral, even if it is (possibly) legal.

I too, talked to the management of Berkeley Bowl when I heard of the unionization efforts. "Are you planning on recognizing the union and negotiating in good faith?" I asked Larry the day manager. He spouted rhetoric about "the employees here don't need a union" (well, it's their right if they want one!), and "employees will have to take a pay cut" if the union is approved. (Why? Berkeley Bowl could grandfather current employees in at their current wage. This is a standard management threat.) All I heard was typical union-bashing rhetoric from both Larry and Chris Thompson. How tired! How 1980s! How ... typical. Very unlike some of the better reporting Mr. Thompson has done in the past.

What's infuriating is how full of "liberals" and "progressives" the Bowl parking lot is. I used to shop at the Bowl; I spent at least $100/week. I had to rearrange my weekly schedule (rather inconveniently) to avoid shopping at the Bowl. But my choice is to "walk my talk" and support workers, even if it means a personal sacrifice.

I now get an organic box delivery, shop at Safeway (union), 99 Ranch Market (for Asian food) & Trader Joe's (for other organic and free-range options) instead of the Bowl. I will do so until they do the right thing by their employees. I encourage all the armchair progressives still shopping there to do the same.
dani eurynome, Oakland

The example of Cody's is a fine one to emulate

I want to remind Chris Thompson that most shoppers really do come to the Bowl just for the tomatoes. I know this because I work there. I could be wrong, but I do not think the mother of three bagging her own groceries is there to "get laid." Certainly, the Berkeley Bowl has created a unique culture, comprised not only by hipster foodies, but by every customer and every employee as well, most of which are not "young, politically active college students." Most employees are people supporting families, people who live in the area, and people who could not care less about the store's "Berkeley Ethos." To them it's just a job. When I am quoted in the article as saying "a lot of people had been talking about it [unionizing] for a long time," these are the people I was referring to.

Being an opinion piece, perhaps we should not subject it the highest standard of journalism. However, I must take issue with certain points, which are represented as facts. First, Thompson states pro-union workers have few complaints, citing that "[Berkeley Bowl] pays wages on par with the industry standard." This is simply false. I have been working as a cashier for three years and am currently making $14.50 an hour. At any union shop, I would have been at $19.00 a year ago. And I work in one of the better-paid departments. A difference of $4.50 does not seem on par, so I called Chris to ask him where he got this information. "It was in a Daily Planet article," he replied. And so it was, but they were wrong too.

Besides, how many complaints do we need? This one issue is plenty: we are "at-will" employees. Let me just cite the employee handbook here: Employees are reminded that termination of employment can occur for any or no reason. The recent firing of Arturo Perez confirms that they aren't kidding. A contract would guarantee progressive disciplinary action before termination. While I may be a young, politically active college student, I feel I can speak for all workers when I say that at-will employment is not exactly a desirable working condition -- job security is.

While I do not agree with Tim Hammand's statement likening the Bowl to fungus, I do agree with his underlying point: If the growth and livelihood of the Berkeley Bowl depend upon underpaying and intimidating the very workers who make it happen, we simply cannot support its expansion. Thompson is right about one thing, regarding the quality of the store depending on Glenn's ability to find his own Andy Ross. I sincerely hope he does, for as you report, Ross successfully runs a union shop.
Kevin Meyer, Oakland