Bad laws don't get changed without their first being some resistance. That always comes at a price. I suspect the supermarket owners ran the scenarios and decided the penalties would be acceptable to limit loses during the strike. Laws are important but they need to evolve with the times lest they instead become tools for doing wrong rather providing deserved protection. For instance, some would like to blame the current economic problems on the repeal of Glass-Steagall but fail to understand that there was good reason for doing it and that the real failure was the responsible regulators who failed to propose effective new controls to suit the very different market that had arisen over the time since Glass-Steagall was first enacted. Some want to paint Phil Gramm as the bad guy but he is one of few serious economist to ever sit in congress and he knew far better what what he was doing than other other elected official making economic policy in recent history. It is a shame that he is severely non-telegenic and thus barred from ever reaching the Oval Office.

I don't live in Pasadena, I just work there part of the time in a building very close to that new Whole Foods. I as frequently work from home in Castaic, although the real work is on-site at clients' businesses or event locations. Although well out of the TMZ, the entertainment industry has a lot of blue collar personnel living here due to the number of nearby production facilities. (I believe this is what has sustained the branch of the First Entertainment Credit Union in the Magic Mountain back lot after the park stopped being part of Warner.)

Just make sure you have your resource supply steady…pull out of NAFTA and there goes all the gas, oil, etc. the US gets from Canada. The US is not totally innocent in its dealings with Canada and Mexico. Politicians need to learn to get some balls and ensure that they playing fair by not hurting one industry in supporting another one. Isolation is not the answer and can hurt the economy far more.

On a positive note, amusing to discover we both live in Pasadena. Go figure…

The judge made a decision based on the law he was required to interpret. It is a rare case in which the judge can rule against the law itself instead of working from it. And where did those laws come from? How did they get there? Somebody suggested them and put up the cash to lobby for their enactment. Who do you suppose would have done that? Gosh, you don't suppose it might have been unions with their fat coffers to control politicians who are entirely their puppets? The unions have lots of money and frequently are found to break the law, too. The difference is that the companies produce stuff and add to the economy while the unions are only parasites upon the economy.

Interesting that the "collusion claims" were ridiculous. So ridiculous that a judge punished the companies. See, what you call "ridiculous," the rest of the world calls "breaking the law." You don't like the law? Get it changed. But your people don't get to ignore them just because they've got a lot of money.

The collusion claims against the supermarkets were idiotic and the laws involved need to be repealed. It is ridiculous that the workforces of different companies can act together collusively under the union's aegis but the affected companies cannot act in the same fashion. And you neglected to mention the numerous scandals involving misuse of funds and other antics from SEIU bosses. But hey, supermarket checkers, those six-figure salary guys are looking out for you. Really.

As for market share, please. Have you done much grocery shopping in California? Ralphs and Safeway/Vons are still the major powers, followed by Albertsons, with no other players worth mentioning in the non-membership sector. Wal-mart Supercenters, which include full grocery sections, don't have enough presence in this state as yet to matter that much.

What the markets gave back is what they'd offered in the first place before the strike. The union could have gotten it without any strike but arbitrarily refused it and ended up signing a less lucrative deal for the workers. Ultimately, the workers were put through a lot of pain and suffering at the union's behest for absolutely no good reason. I've seen it happen before to both of my parents and numerous others. I determined a long time ago that I didn't want to go into any line of work that required union membership as I prefer to run my own life and make my own agreements with employers. This in turn has made me very resentful of laws engineered by unions to make it difficult to operate outside of them, as if I were a child dependent on their guidance and protection.

As for the supermarket strike, I think that was the last gasp of serious attempts at union busting in this country. The supermarkets colluded illegally to fight the unions, and ended up paying big fines for their crimes. They also lost lots of market share, some of which they never got back. (Hmm, just like the TV networks.) And in the next negotiation, the markets folded and gave back a lot of what they'd taken away in the previous strike.