Your prompt response to our recent letter is appreciated. We welcome the opportunity to continue the dialogue, even though we must take issue with much of your letter’s content.

Contrary to your statement, the “union” did not call this strike; rather over 97% of your involved employees voted to strike. What other choice did you give these loyal employees? Your proposal virtually eliminated all future pension benefits and forced your employees to either cut their health care by 40% or pay over $350.00 per month to maintain their current benefits. You also fail to acknowledge that “our” strike was directed at one supermarket chain in order to limit the inconvenience to the public. Albertson’s and Ralph’s chose to lock-out its employees and thereby substantially increase the “damage and suffering” you now express concern over.

We agree, as your letter states, that “the unions uniquely understand the challenges facing our industry.” Unfortunately, your intractable position at the bargaining table has so far precluded the unions from using its unique knowledge to fashion a mutually agreeable resolution to our dispute. We have tried formally, and informally, as your letter recognizes, to find solutions to the challenges facing our industry. After four long months, we have yet to succeed. Rather than endure four more months of glacial bargaining progress, we sincerely, believed our arbitration proposal offered the parties a method to end the labor dispute immediately, while giving both sides the opportunity to have their issues fully and fairly considered. If you truly believe that your bargaining proposals are reasonable and necessary, why are you reluctant to have a mutually agreed upon neutral party pass judgement on them? We offered to use each parties’ last comprehensive proposals to set the parameters within which the arbitrator would make his/her decision. It is unfair to suggest that an “outsider” would decide on the new contract terms.

Our proposal to end this dispute now with binding arbitration does not indicate we are at an impasse but rather was an attempt to end this dispute without further delay and prolonged negotiations.

The meetings referred to in your letter in San Francisco and Denver were beneficial. The parties engaged in frank and fruitful dialogue. Nonetheless, “the proposed solutions and flexibility” you refer to in your letter, fall far short in bridging the enormous gaps between the devastating contract cuts you are seeking and the union’s reasonable solutions to the real challenges we face.

Contrary to your claim, both the union and company actuaries agree the health care plan you have proposed would not be supported by your proposed contributions by the last year of the agreement. Putting aside your erroneous claims of a consensus that the plan you propose is “excellent,” you fail to address the reality created by that proposal. Every one of your 71,000 current employees would have their current health care benefits slashed by 40% immediately, if your proposal was accepted. Each employee would face hundreds, if not thousands of dollars of additional out-of-pocket expenses each year. Yet you do not offer them even a penny in wage increases to help offset this enormous new financial burden. Then you compound this financial pain by insisting that each of these employees reach further into their pockets to pay a weekly premium. However, you choose to look at it, each of your mostly part-time employees will suffer a substantial cut in pay, which they are not in a position to absorb, while losing a significant portion of their health benefits.

The implication in your letter that the meeting in Denver resulted in a set of proposals that could be presented to our members is not correct. While we were fully informed of all that transpired, we were not presented with a comprehensive proposal which our members could have considered. Indeed the UFCW representatives in Denver specifically informed your companies that they could not recommend your concepts to the locals. In San Francisco as well as in Denver, we presented your companies with a number of potential solutions to the issues. Indeed, we offered a comprehensive solution to the pension issue which would have avoided any cuts in benefits yet saved you more than $40 million over the cost of your own proposal.

We remain willing to pursue any avenue that would result in a fair and just resolution of this dispute. Therefore, we certainly intend to meet with the mediator as soon as possible.

We believe it is essential that the parties resolve this dispute in a manner that both sides can mutually agree upon. Anything short of that would threaten the future of our industry more that the perceived competitive threat that you are focused on. Towards that end, we would welcome your direct involvement in the negotiations when they resume this week.

Please join us at the bargaining table so that we can communicate clearly our solutions to the remaining issues directly to those persons who will ultimately decide whether to accept them. Such a direct and open dialogue can only lead us closer to a fair resolution of this dispute.

Sincerely,