Look, this isn't going to make a difference, until something is done about Wal-Mart. I know management needs to do their fair share, but unless the union makes some kind of concession, these stores will just go out of business. What really needs to happen is a nationwide boycott of Wal-Mart.

I don't know if I found the link on your site, but the LAT story on Wal-Mart discussed how many union members shopped there(even member of UFCW)!! I mean c'mon.

Re the Wal-Mart "meme," Wal-Mart has not even one of its supercenters in SoCal and hence does not compete with any of these 3 chains at all. Wal-Mart is not the issue. Safeway's CEO is out to bust the union, plain and simple. He is free to say it all has to do with Wal-Mart or to the rising price of bananas or whatever, but he has made union busitng the chief focus of his tenure at Safeway and to pretend that this involves anything else is just not true.

I'm happy to lend support to this boycott, but I'm very confused about labor dispute boycotts.

In SoCal the grocery workers are striking against a number of store including Safeway (or Vons). So is it ok to shop at one of the other struck stores (outside of SoCal)? Like Albertson's in Vancouver, WA. Is that ok? And if the answer is "yes" it is ok, then why is that? Also, are we really helping the union cause if we start shopping at non-union alternatives like Trader Joe's, Wild Oats, Whole Foods, WinCo, QFC etc. etc. etc.?

So now I'm not shopping at Safeway. Ok. I'm also not shopping at Border's or on Amazon.com because of a strike at Border's in Michigan. But I don't live in Michigan, and I don't shop at Michigan Border's stores. So why am I not shopping at the Border's where I live? And how does Amazon.com fit into all this? I know they're Border's on-line bookstore, but how does that impact the folk in Michigan? And are the Border's folks really helped by my increased patronage of Barnes & Noble (or am I supposed to boycott them too?)

I know I sound frustrated, and I am (generally with management in all the above cases). And I will gladly boycott whoever needs boycotting if it'll help my union brethren and sistren. But I don't think it's too much to ask that the rationale behind the boycott be explained, and that preferred alternatives be identified.

A couple of comments [from a devoted reader of this column who also happens to be an attorney for several of the locals and, by extension, thousands of the striking and locked out workers]:

First, this is a fight whose outcome will affect all workers: the rest of the grocery and retail industry in the short run and everyone else in the long run. That is why a nationwide boycott of these stores makes sense, because if the chains succeed in Southern California they will take their campaign everywhere else. They have already won over a nearly bankrupt union in Oregon and it appears they got the same deal in West Virginia. They will pursue the same agenda in Northern California next year. And if these major, profitable employers can do it, then expect others to follow their lead.

The employers' strategy only makes sense as part of this scenario: they have refused to make any significant changes in their proposal to dismantle the existing benefit plan, and have even made it worse in some respects, even though Southern California shoppers have proved to be far more supportive of the strike than anyone, judging from past experience, ever expected. The three chains have apparently decided to take a bath in sales, profits and market share in Southern California in order to bust the unions here and bankrupt the UFCW nationally.

Second, while Wal-Mart is setting the standard that these chains are following, Wal-Mart itself is not a major presence in Southern California today. The three chains dominated the market before the strike and took in significant profits in an industry that has always had relatively slim profit margins. This is not Chrysler or the steel industry of twenty-five years ago; they could afford to maintain the current plan, with or without modifications.

That does not mean, however, that Wal-Mart is not a threat to unionized workers, here and elsewhere: any company that takes in eight billion dollars in profits, based on nearly 250 billion dollars in sales, but insists on cheating its own workers on overtime and offers them a health plan which most of its own workers cannot afford is a threat. Let's also remember that it has developed union-busting to a high art; if a union organizer hands out leaflets at one of its stores, headquarters in Bentonville not only learns within minutes, but starts telling its district and local managers how to respond. We will have to organize Wal-Mart to survive. I proudly sport a "WAL MART SUCKS Life from Communities" bumper sticker on my car and support any action (short of burning down all their stores) to boycott Wal-Mart.

That is a moot point, however, if we lose this strike. We need all the help we can get. And boycotting those stores may be the only way to get the message to Burd of Safeway and the analysts he is trying to impress that this scorched earth strategy is a loser. While it may seem counterproductive to patronize the non-union competition [I can't, so I am going to the union stores that remain open], in the short run it makes sense.

Continuing the inquisitive line... does anyone know of a list of union stores online somewhere that persons like Kumar and myself can use as a reference?

The AFL has an online shop union website at:

http://unionshop.aflcio.org/shop/index.cfm

But I'm skeptical of broad consumer-driven approaches that ask people to "choose" to shop at often more expensive union shops when the people we're asking probably don't make union wages. (For how many years were textile unions singing at us to buy union when they could have been organizing and building international alliances?) A choice-based shopping strategy works best for those with more comfortable incomes. Not a bad thing, but not worth much, certainly not compared to all the vital work we could be doing to support organizing campaigns. That said, I shop union whenever I can.

Also I think the Safeway boycott/"shop-out" is a different story--it's a narrow, specific target with a defined goal. We can beat these bastards, and we better!

Ther's a good list at http://www.saveourhealthcare.org/altshop.html

The last time I was in a Safeway, in Houston, Texas in late 1979, I saw a rat (I mean a literal rodent) run across an aisle.

Okay, I know it's a challenge to keep a store clean down there in the tropics, but Safeway was notorious compared to other stores in that area. Later, I heard, Safeway pulled out of Houston altogether.

(The Borders strike is big news here in Ann Arbor; peering through their windows during the recent holiday season, I was happy to observe a conspicuous lack of crowds of shoppers.)