Those of you from other parts of the world may not be aware of it, but in St. Louis we're having a little grocery store strike at the moment. A friend called me tonight, said she would not cross the picket line. I said I had run out of food, so what was I to do?

Historically, I'm appreciative of unions, but nonetheless I try to judge things on a case-by-case basis, on actual merits versus demerits. For example, I know some unions feature bosses which suck up to management more than their members, while skimming off healthy dues and investing them in questionable causes. Why should someone, especially someone who is pro-worker, support that kind of behavior?

In this case, I'm listening to see what the issues are. So far...

Compensation

The issue:

The contract offered a raise of 75 cents an hour over three years - 25 cents a year - plus a 20-cent-an-hour bonus once the union ratified the contract. The raise only applies to workers who make $9 an hour or more.

Under the contract the union negotiated with Schnucks in 2000, workers who made at least $8.03 an hour saw wages rise $1 over three years, plus a 75-cent-an-hour bonus.

Union members had traditionally enjoyed relatively generous medical benefits under previous contracts. But under the tentative agreement, workers would assume a greater share of the costs of their medical care. Spouses who work at other companies that offer health insurance would no longer be covered by the union grocery workers' health plan.

My analysis: One on hand, these raises are about one third of what they had gotten before (which was quite generous, by all accounts I can find): $.95 over three years. At $9/hr, this is about 10.5% over three years, or about 3.5% per year. Cry me a river -- most of us are getting raises lower than that! If we move up the salary scale, to $12/hr, this is a 2.6% raise annually. Again, not impressive, but certainly at pace with inflation, and what the rest of us are getting.

Benefits

The issue:

Under the old contract, the three companies fully or nearly fully covered several medical services, including emergency-room treatment, chiropractic visits, immunizations and physical therapy. Workers did not pay annual deductibles or premiums.

But the contract proposal would require co-payments or higher co-payments on some services. It also would establish an annual deductible: $200 for an individual, $400 for a family.

The proposal also would no longer offer health coverage to spouses who are offered health insurance at their own workplaces — a cost-saving move that more companies are considering, Douglas said.

Even with the proposed changes, the union's benefits are still impressive, experts say. It's rare today for companies not to require employees to pay for premiums, Douglas said.

According to a recent Mercer survey of large companies, those with 500 employees or more, only 6 percent that offer a preferred-provider plan did not require workers to contribute money for family coverage. Of those that offer HMO plans, 7 percent said employees do not pay such premiums. Of companies that offer point-of-service plans, 4 percent said workers do not pay premiums.

My analysis: Good heavens! This hardly sounds like the old days of the evil bosses giving the shaft to poor Bob Cratchett whose boy Tiny Tim who needs the operation to survive. They had complete coverage? Sweet! Nice offer, actually -- as we can see, they were in the top echelon of benefits.

This year it seems they will have co-pays, just like the rest of us. And, perhaps I'm being cruel and cold-hearted, but it seems reasonable to let the spouse's employer pick up the other half of the benefits, provided coverage is indeed available.

Health care benefit costs increased 14% this year. Most of us already have co-pays and deductables... I'm supposed to get choked up because people who have had a much better plan than mine now are now only slightly better off?

And don't they realize that when health care benefits remain the same, or even decrease slightly -- that in the face of a 14% increase in costs, that represents a real 10-14% raise in compensated value from their employer? Again, it's hardly cruely we're seeing here.

In addition, I approve of small out-of-pocket payments in all cases: Nothing is quite as pricey as when it's "free" -- small (though not onerous) payments remind health care consumers that that "free" service costs something -- and remember, that 14% increase didn't come from nowhere -- those are costs we, the health-care consumers have incurred, which have been spread out among all of us.

If we are unhappy about the rising costs of medical services, we can look partially to ourselves: Why do you think we're seeing Viagra, Paxil, and other ads on TV? Because we can be persuaded to get treatments we might not have thought we needed otherwise. Services we think our "employers" pay for, forgetting that in the end we all foot the bill.

Lost Wages

If we assume there are 52 weeks in a year, 2 week strike represents a 4% loss in salary for this year. That's a lot of cash to give up for a point -- unless these workers play to make a long-term career out of bagging or stocking shelves, they may be giving up more than they'll get back unless they get a pretty hefty raise in the renegotiation -- much larger than the current one.

Wrap-Up

In recent years, non-union Wal-Mart has gained 14.7% of these stores' business. The economy is in a slump in the moment, and health care costs are rising. I fear these workers may be harming their own long-term prospects. These local employers have clearly been good to union employees.

Paradoxically, these strikes have helped non-union warehouses and hurt union warehouses: Dierbergs is moving more product because it has a non-union supplier; that benefits the supplier as well, and gives it a clear competitive advantage in the future.

Further, people will either be forced to cross picket lines or force to shop at non-union stores. Food is not a luxury, after all. We can skip the shopping for a few days, but hunger sets in eventually. Patronising Wal-Mart can hardly be what the unions desire we do in the long run, but yet...

Overall, I have trouble having sympathy with the union's position in this specific case. Competitors like Wal-Mart and rising health care costs are undoubtedly putting their employers in a tight squeeze. If the employers really are sitting on lots of "fat" that can be shared, then the unions have made the right move. But if not, then the unions have grossly miscalculated: Their added benefits must by paid for by increased retail product prices, which are paid ... drum roll please ... by you and I, the consumer. In essence, we, not some evil "bosses" somewhere, pay the union's extra compensation.

And if that price difference becomes even greater between union and non-union stores, consumers, especially in a tight economy, will inevitably be drawn to the non-union stores. And both the "good" employers being struck against and their current employees will find themselves out of a job, and Sam Walton's minions will find themselves a bit wealthier, and controlling a lot of the jobs which used to exist at Schnucks and Dierbergs.

Or "good" employers will get rid of the union employees altogether, become more like Wal-Mart, and save themselves a bundle, after a very rocky transition. And we may see worse service. Perhaps.*

(*I have already gotten some pretty bad service from a certain girl at the deli counter. She talks to her co-workers endlessly while I stand there, waiting for her to deem me worth her time. Seeing her striking for higher wages out front didn't actually endear me to her cause.)

In the end, I have trouble summoning sympathy. I worked in a grocery store myself for years, and never got a lick of health care benefits. And I have a co-pay myself: It's hard for me, as a skilled employee with a decade or two of experience, to summon a huge amount of sympathy for workers, many of whom are still kids in high school or just out, who are whining because their benefits have been decreased to slightly above my own level.

One Final Note: Taking Sides

Usually, we're told to "take the unions' side" in these disputes. Since there are people out on the picket lines, they're putting a face on their position. That can be a powerful motivator.

But who says everything a union wants or says is right, reasonable, or in it's own long-term benefit? How many unions voted themselves unsustainable wages, only to see their own businesses destroyed by competition? It seems entirely possible to me that union leaders or members can take a wrong position, to their own detriment, even.

Futher, it's much easier to sympathise with "poorer" unskilled laborers than their management, college-trained accountants and bookkeepers, and wealthy owners.

Yet, on the other hand, business owners certainly work hard to build a company. And arguably have a much larger long-term stake in keeping the business functioning and offering jobs, than, say, a bag-boy who may be interested in getting more money this year and the next, but may not actually care if the business folds a bit later on: He's had his and moved on, who cares beyond that?

And the same can be said of the managers, most of who have worked their way up the ladder and know exactly what it's like to bag groceries, stock shelves, and cut celery -- many of them got started exactly that way.

And this case is kind of odd: It seems the seasoned union leadership is not entirely unhappy with the contract, but union employees rejected it anyway:

Kelley told members that the contract was the best he could get, and he appeared to put his credibility on the line when he submitted it for a vote. But members rejected it overwhelmingly.

"The members don't quite trust the officers the way they trusted them when they had been in place for a long time," Gruenberg said.

It's an interesting dynamic: The union leaders recognize the problems facing the supermarket industry, but the rank-and-file members look at the contract and see only meager raises and higher health-care costs.

So I don't need to take sides: If the union workers feel they really can get a much better deal, then they certain have the right to strike. And if grocery stores don't feel they can afford what unions are asking, they certainly can refuse to offer a better contract.

In the end I expect the unions, the local stores, and the market are perfectly capable of sorting this out. Yet I fear if union employees miscalculate by trying to get something for nothing, we may all find ourselves worse off, with fewer places to work, and fewer places to buy groceries.

Sam Walton's heirs wouldn't mind that too much, though.

UPDATE: There's an interesting follow-up on comments which have been posted here.