I was ABOUT to say something pretty important before the site disappeared. My husband has been an expert in the grocery industry for nearly 15 years as both check-out clerk and greeter at Wal-Mart. He says stores never EVER close in anticipation of losing money to soon to be opening competition. Rather, they always wait to see a couple of years of losses before they fold tent.

you and your husband are wrong it was the unions that shut down Genes and the unions that shut down the original thread

The thread was probably removed because of all the stupid personal attacks.

PW, how many abusive posts from unregistered users do you get compared with legitimate anonymous whistle-blowing activity? Is the continued depravity of your site worth the continued pursuit of that ideal?

My husband could tell you all kinds of stories about how he had to fight the good fight against unionization. Whenever he heard any murmurings about bad pay or bad working conditions he'd turn them into his shift supervisor and wouldn't have to worry about seeing them ever again. Like management has always told him, as a store greeter he can be the best of the best. Part of the Wal-Mart family. Unions threaten all that. With unions, instead of healthy competition among the greeters its all dumbing down and mediocrity. And they bring in the scourge of the earth, lawyers, who get all bent out of shape defending the malcontents who claim they should be paid a living wage.

What I said before they closed the topic, Kathleen, was that I hoped the service and products remained the same, union or not. The people that work at Gene's are great.

I sure hope Gene's going out of business isn't because of the new Wal-Mart going in. That would confirm all those studies that say WalMarts are bad for the communities they enter. If all the other stores go down, at least we'll still have WalMart and 99 Cent Store to shop at.

Genes closing because of Walmart...good grief that's ridiculous. Stores are not going to start closing because Walmart might open a grocery store. If you read the article you would have seen that they said business was down and the new Safeway was one of the reasons.

When are you sheeple going to open your bovine eyes and realize that the unions are eroding our community and threatening our precious bodily fluids? Sure, you like the workers at Gene's NOW, but what about when they form a union and become unholy socialist thugs? Will you stand up for them then, Kathleen, or will you join me in stridently judging them?

Well that's good to know, Gail. Because if the new Safeway was one of the reasons, then we sure won't have to worry about the new Walmart bringing in even more competition, that's for sure!

Your argument about even the rumor of Walmart grocery coming to town would impact genes business is as ludicrous as obamacare impacting businesses healthcare plans before its fully implemented....oh, wait......

I can vouch for that. My union overlord called me up as soon as Walmart was approved and ordered me not to buy groceries for myself or my family until the new grocery store opened. True fact!

Gail,
My husband is an expert in the grocery business. He's been a checker and greeter at WalMart for approx 15 years. He says it isn't possible that Gene's closed because of the new Safeway. You see, Safeway is unionized and hence its groceries are about 185% higher than everybody else's. No way people would go and shop at a cesspool of union corruption like Safeway when it has the inexpensive nonunion Gene's goods to buy.

The more likely seenario is that union goons were sent into Gene's to shoplift until the shelves were bare. We shopped there recently and found something two gross to mention in the back of our truck.

Yes, let us turn yet another topic into a discussion about how evil unions are with not one single fact to back our arguments! I must be some kind of leftist loon for wanting to see people actually back up their arguments with facts. Only us leftist loons would want people to speak the truth after all. In the end belief is all that matters and unfortunately for us leftist loon there is no place for logic, reasoning, truth, or fact in today's Pleasanton, or perhaps America as a whole.

Lucielle...I only quoted what was said in the Pleasanton Patch article. I have no idea why Gene's was sold other than what I read.
I'm sick of every post here always turning into a union discussion.
Seems no one can have a discussion about anything without it turning into some pro/con union rant.

M., you're being had by the PW's troll.

If you readers don't like every thread turning into an absurd rant about unions, complain to the Pleasanton Weekly.

I don't think we should dismiss out of hand the terrible impact unions have had on this country. My husband just got to a point after 15 years of being a greeter where he's making a dollar more than minimum wage per hour, and we don't want to jeopardize what he's accomplished by letting the union in the door.

First, he'd loose everything above minimum wage to the union bosses because that's what they do. Everything above minimum wage must be sacrificed to union dues. Second, this nation has a long history of workers experiencing extreme hardship and deprivation when they struggle against the union. Just look at the history of labor in the United States. At least half the time it was heroic workers fighting to keep union bosses off the shop floor. Third, every day my husband exercised free choice. Either go to work or be fired, and being the liberty loving people that we are he chose to go to work. When unions are brought in they stifle free choice. If you don't go to work and the company wants to fire you, you get represented by the corrupt union overlords and their vassals who try to save your job which, face it, is no choice at all.

Fourth, and finally, unions disrupt the sense of family that exists in a company. My husband feels he's part of the Walton family. When he reached 75 two years ago they promised to move him off the graveyard shift, which they haven't done yet. But they've assured him no more shelf stocking unless they're really shorthanded.

Had the pleasure of shopping at Gene's today. Interesting conversations on this the last day for many of the long time employees. I was not surprised some might choose to leave, but I was surprised to hear the reason . . . their pay would be substantially cut and they would have to pay union dues as well. So much for the argument that union goals are to ensure a living wage.

New owners take over tomorrow. I hope they bring good people and maintain the great service.

My wife also shopped at Gene's today. What she heard is that with a new company going in, present workers would not retain seniority rights but would have to start again as new employees. What's worse, with union dues, their pay was going to amount to less than 2.40 per hour. And that's the truth.

More importantly, though, the new company isn't even paying them. It's going to be the union that hires and fires. That was part of the deal. That's the only way the company can make money - have the unions pay wages and salaries, and then have the union skim off the majority of the wages and salaries to support the goon union captains. It's nothing but a ponzi scheme, just like public school teachers.

The only hope for these workers is to do what historically they've always done: FIGHT THE UNION BOSSES. My grandfather was antiunion all of his life, and so was my father. With every fiber of their being they fought against vacation pay, workplace safety, the "right" to collective bargain and to file grievances. What a bunch of hooey! Workers of the world unite against Union Bosses! You've nothing to lose but your guaranteed vacation pay!

It isn't whether the new owners or the union are good or bad. It is the nonsense put out here that someplace like, oh, say, WalMart should unionize so people can earn a decent wage. Gene's is an example where they will earn less on top of paying dues. Seems to me if you have 20 years experience working for Gene's, your seniority shouldn't disappear just because a union came in.

You seem to be even more confused than usual, Kathleen. You are assuming (based on hearsay) that the workers will earn less because of their union. But the union isn't paying the workers is it? And the union didn't set the pay scale did it? You're blaming the union because a certain company pays a lousy wage? Who writes the checks?

But such is what occurs with the conservative's brain. Confronted with a set of facts, they will engage in excruciating mental gymnastics in order to deflect ridicule away from themselves.

Here's another good one. Should Walmart unionize? Of course not! What nonsense! Walmart workers ALREADY make a decent wage. That's why so many qualify for govt'lly assisted food stamps, silly! You're brilliant Kathleen, truly you are! ... And now let the face-saving begin....

Troll alert, again......genes will no doubt be out of business shortly, driven into the ground by their union masters. The blame will be placed on Walmart, as they are the favorite boogeyman of organized labor. I guess we all have to make sacrifices.....

Michel--yeah, always the trolls. Walter, not hearsay, it was an employee. Not confused either; I said it wasn't about anyone being good or bad--just unfortunate that people who have experience get the short end of the stick. Gene's owners obviously had a reason for selling; the new owners bring a union and union rules.

Right, Kathleen. Nothing hearsay, as you heard someone else say it straight from their mouth. And nothing about unions being bad or good. It's just that unions suck, that's all. And it's just that Walmart's workers are better off not being unionized and Gene's replacement company appears to be a pennypincher as a consequence of the workers being unionized. Yes, you're being perfectly clear, as usual. No nonsense or face saving from you. That's why my husband and I respect you so.

My husband feels the same way. He told me straight from the horse's mouth -- heard it from a fellow employee at Walmart -- that most union goon leaders are trained in China and take lavish summer vacations in Cuba. Using reverse psychology, today they do everything in their power to reduce workers' wages. That's why companies are tripping over themselves to help their workers organize. Because unions bring about reduced wages. But I'm not saying that they're either good or bad. Because bad is bad and good is good.

So Lucielle, now it's the replacement company's fault? As I said, Gene's had their reasons for selling, so a good place to start is with what caused them to sell. Not enough sales? Too many employees making too much? Some combination? Something(s) else?

"Someone" was an employee; there was no anger, just a clear explanation of what was happening.

Never been bashful that I am not a fan of unions. I think they hurt and hold back a lot of their members. And I don't know if WalMart workers are better off in or not in a union; I have said go ahead and organize them.

Let me be the first to say that according to the other thread on the sale of Gene's the replacement owner has a non-union shop (exception apparently is the meat department). So I am left with wrong information about people losing wages due to a union. My sincere apologies; I will take the blame for misunderstanding the conversation.

As usual on here! Everything thread transitions to the .....broken record about the "evil unions, Obama, democrats and our stupidity or illegals/low income people" all of which are ruining Pleasanton! barfbarfbarf

The mess Kathleen Ruegsegger has left behind her is instructive in that it shows what lengths right wingers will go to believe and then offer up as fact the most preposterous of "facts" which have now been disproven.

Called for being a gossip and spreading untruths based on hearsay, she denied such. She heard it from someone else, after all, and what could be more reliable than that? And over and above the ridiculous assertion that unionized workers were going to make less in wages than they did previously (common sense anyone?), she then compounded the hilarity of it all by saying that lowered wages were on account of the unions. Even the most cursory understanding of labor politics in California, or even a superficial reading of labor history, should have been enough to invalidate the rumor. But since right wingers have so little of a factual nature to grasp on to, they light on whatever lie is out there, so badly do they want to believe in the fantasy world they construct around themselves and expect others to swallow whole. I agree with Chris: barfbarfbarf

Even if they made less than before, I'm sure they make it all back up in the form of better benefits.

Pierre, I had a conversation with an employee and I was either misinformed or misunderstood. I accepted responsibility and apologized. That should be enough.

I do not make assumptions about you, your politics, or resort to slinging mud and lies. Repeatedly calling me a right winger will not make it so. I have never chosen where I shop based on whether or not a place of business is unionized; I will continue to go for the products and service.

Big difference between making assumptions and drawing well-founded, valid inferences based upon another person's repeated posts. Your little mess is simply another piece of confirming evidence.

If you care to elaborate on how your self-alleged libertarianism is not situated on the right side of the spectrum, I'm sure some readers will be eager to see the elaboration. If you can do it without drawing upon hearsay and fantastic, unsupported claims, all the better.

Really Pierre, Perhaps you never make mistakes and then feel a need to apologize. I generally post links to information where I can. I told you the source of the information I received. I owe you nothing more.

You're so right, Kathleen. Posters should be able to claim whatever they want without backing up their claims. Sorry I took seriously the apparent contradiction between you being a self-avowed libertarian and your insistent claim that you're not a right winger. I should have treated the contradiction with no more seriousness than the silly gossip you spread in above posts. Both are something of a joke.

I am socially liberal (gay marriage for example) and economically conservative (smaller government); some think that defines libertarianism, others do not. I also understand that those two positions can conflict with each other when government programs require using tax dollars. You could support certain social programs, but might feel their should be limitations. So I vote for officials based on their potential influence on key policy issues. Never been a one-armed voter.

What? Sounds to me like you're a right winger who supports gay marriage. (Bully for you!) You remind me a lot of my husband, Kathleen. I try to take him seriously, but when it comes to politics he's just plain full of it. I smile and try to live with the embarrassment. What do you do?

What kind of loony statements are being thrown out here?

"What's worse, with union dues, their pay was going to amount to less than 2.40 per hour. And that's the truth."

"My husband feels the same way. He told me straight from the horse's mouth -- heard it from a fellow employee at Walmart -- that most union goon leaders are trained in China and take lavish summer vacations in Cuba."

"You see, Safeway is unionized and hence its groceries are about 185% higher than everybody else's."

Uh, oh. Trolls.
"First, he'd loose everything above minimum wage to the union bosses because that's what they do. Everything above minimum wage must be sacrificed to union dues."

Stop the bullying, Crock. My statements were parodies of the equally absurd (and patently false) statements made by Kathleen which she has since had to retract and apologize for. The real problem is that SHE was being serious! I clearly was not being serious. Get it? Atta boy!

As for my hyper-hyperbolic statements, I apologize for not recognizing that some readers, not to mention any names, Crock, are too dense to recognize parody when they read it. (That's parody, not to be confused with parroting which is the resort of so many of the righties on these threads.)

Lucille, how about parity......and a big cup of shut the hell up, you condescending windbag.

Yeo Sybil,

Ooze yourself out from beneath that rock and I might be able to better hear you from up here.

Do you have anything to say about the topic? What? Still can't hear you! Well hear this: I refuse to be intimidated by your bullying attempt to shut me up. Go over to Stacey's site if you want to hobnob with control freaks. (I think they're all having a big meeting in the phone booth just outside the Shell station.)

Hi, Lucielle. Just checking to see if you're still talking....glad my comment hit the mark. Hasta la vista......