Striking Grocer Unions Make Case For Repeal of SB 2.

Business Editors

SACRAMENTO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 29, 2003

Opponents of Senate Bill 2 (Burton), a proposal that imposes a $7 billion tax on employers and workers to fund a mandatory health care scheme, today said that grocery unions currently engaged in strikes against Albertsons, Ralphs and Vons demonstrate that the legislation is unworkable and unaffordable.

"The most contentious issue in this strike is the unions' unwillingness to have their members share in the cost of their own health care premiums," said Bill Dombrowski, president of the California Retailers Association and co-chair of Californians Against Government Run Healthcare (CAGRH). "It is ironic, then, that they were a prime backer of SB 2, which forces employers to pay at least 80% of premiums and forces workers to pay up to 20%. The unions got themselves exempted from SB 2 and now are on strike over the very same issue."

SB 2 requires employers with 20 or more workers to pay for health insurance or pay a tax to fund a state government program to provide coverage. Larger employers must also pay for dependent and domestic partner coverage. The bill provides that workers pay up to 20%. The grocer employers have offered an extremely generous health care plan that asks current employees to share a small cost -- $5 a week for a single employee or $10-$15 a week for families. Currently these union represented employees pay no part of premiums. SB 2, were unions not exempted from the bill, would require these workers to pay up to 20% of the cost of premiums.

"Given the fact that health care costs in California are rising by approximately 15% a year, mandated health care is a tremendous burden for both employers and workers," said Allan Zaremberg, president of the California Chamber of Commerce and co-chair of CAGRH. "We find the position of striking unions inconsistent with their position on SB 2. It appears to us that they are more than willing to force non-unionized employers and workers to pay for this tremendous burden, but are not willing to share in the burden for their own members."