01.28.20 — It has come to the Union’s attention that Osco management has sent a bargaining update to pharmacists containing misleading and false information.  Teamsters Local 727 would like to take this opportunity to correct the Company’s misrepresentations and provide members with the facts.

 

Wages:

• While it is true that Osco pharmacists make about $4.75/hr more than Walgreens and CVS pharmacists, Osco management fails to acknowledge in its update that Osco pharmacists have far more responsibilities than any other retail pharmacists.  Does Osco not believe more daily duties deserve higher compensation?

• Osco claims it pays pharmacists more than Walgreens, however, what the Company does not state in its update is that the Walgreens contract will be expiring in May and, after a 3-year wage freeze, that Walgreens pharmacists are likely to fight hard for a wage increase.  Additionally, though their wages have been frozen since 2017, under their CBA, Walgreens pharmacists have received significantly larger annual lump sum payments over the past 3 years than what Osco is proposing for its own employees.

• Osco claims it pays pharmacists more than CVS, but it does not state in its update that a CVS pharmacists’ compensation package also includes participation in the Local 727 Legal and Educational Assistance Fund, as well as Local 727’s vision  plan, which are all 100% employer-paid benefits.  Additionally, Osco fails to include the fact that CVS wages have been frozen since 2015 because CVS has, as determined by the National Labor Relations Board Office of Appeals, engaged in bad faith bargaining throughout negotiations.

 

New Hire Rate/Bidding:

• While it is true that Osco’s new hire wage rate matches Walgreens, the Company again fails to point out that the Walgreens contract will be expiring in May and it is likely that Walgreens pharmacists will fight to raise their new hire wage rate.  Should Walgreens pharmacists succeed, Osco’s proposed new hire wage rate could be the lowest in the industry.

• Osco management correctly points out that the “Walgreens Side Letter” provides some protections for pharmacists; however, Osco downplays the fact that the Walgreens’ letter only requires Osco to increase its top wage rate up to 2.75%.  If Walgreens pharmacists’ new hire wage rate increases by more than 2.75%, Osco new hires could be the lowest paid union pharmacists in the Chicagoland area.

• In an effort to meet in the middle, the Local 727 bargaining committee’s latest proposal included a starting new hire wage rate of $58—the same amount proposed by Osco—and large wage raises each year of the agreement that nearly catch the new hire wage rate up to the full rate.  The Union asked only for additional job protections for current pharmacists to ensure they are not replaced by the lower-paid employees.  Despite the Union agreeing to a new hire rate that doesn’t fully catch-up, Osco rejected the Union’s proposal.

• Despite Osco’s assurance that lower-paid pharmacists will not be able to “bump” higher-paid pharmacists, the lack of transparency of the Company’s bid process makes this a promise pharmacists cannot trust.  Local 727 members continue to communicate to the Union their fears that the lack of transparency in the bid process will result in Osco management obfuscating its cost-cutting focus by relying on a flimsy pretext or pointing to an unspecified “business need” as the justification for promoting a lower-paid pharmacist over a higher-paid pharmacist.

• To ensure all pharmacists are made aware of all open positions, Local 727 has proposed contract language that would require Osco to email all open positions to all pharmacists’ individual emails, as well as all store email accounts, at least two weeks before bidding closes.  Though Osco already emails most open positions to pharmacists, Osco has rejected this proposal.

• Since Osco’s lack of transparency means there is no way to guarantee management will not promote a lower-paid pharmacist to a staff or head position merely to cut budget costs, Local 727 has proposed restricting the promotion of lower-paid pharmacists for the duration of the contract.  However, should no higher-paid pharmacist bid or accept an open head pharmacist role—positions Osco management claims it has had difficulty filling—the Union bargaining committee has agreed it would be acceptable to promote a new hire only if the Company begins paying the pharmacist the full wage.  Again, the Union bargaining committee, unlike Osco, got creative and created a proposal that addresses the concerns of both Local 727 members and the Company.  Osco has rejected the Union’s fair proposal.

• Under Osco’s proposed two-tier wage system, lower-paid pharmacists can be promoted to a head pharmacist position.  As such, a head pharmacist could make less than a staff pharmacist working in the same pharmacy.

 

Health Insurance:

• Osco claims in its update to pharmacists that it has “agreed to the Union’s approach regarding employees’ contribution to the HRA plan.”  This is not true.  Pharmacists are currently responsible for paying approximately 27-31% of the HRA premium rate.  Local 727 has proposed freezing the share of the premium covered by pharmacists.  This would mean that pharmacists continue to pay 27-31% of the premium but, as health care costs increase, that share may cost more.  Osco has proposed increasing pharmacists’ share AND increasing the cost of the HRA premium.

• Osco has proposed removing the Most Favored Nations clause of the CBA, which guarantees that pharmacists’ health care costs will be lowered to match managers’ health care costs if the Company decreases management’s premium rate.

• Based on management’s current 2020 health care rates, Osco’s proposed lump sums will be almost completely eaten up by increasing health care costs.  The little amount that will be left after pharmacists pay their more expensive health care premium will not cover cost-of-living increases, meaning pharmacists will be receiving a pay cut under Osco’s proposed lump sums.

• While Osco’s proposed lump sums will cover the current year’s health care increases, they are not guaranteed to cover future years’ increases, which are currently unknown.

 

Vacation/Scheduling:

• The one week holdback of vacation that Osco continues to tout as a generous new benefit for pharmacists is actually a standard past practice that Osco took away from its hardworking employees. 

• Osco claims it wants to reinstate the practice of allowing pharmacists to hold back a week of vacation to increase flexibility for its employees but the Company has repeatedly ignored the fact that a one week holdback does not work well for floaters who do not receive their schedules well in advance.  As such, floaters risk losing their vacation if they hold back a week. 

• To be fair to all pharmacists and make it possible for floaters to schedule doctors appointments in advance, Local 727 has proposed floaters be given the opportunity to request which day of the week is their “off-day” up to 5 times per year if they have not yet received their schedule for that week.  These are not additional PTO days and they are not guaranteed.  Under the Union’s proposal, the Company must simply make a reasonable effort to accommodate a floater’s request.  Osco management has stated in negotiations that it is willing to work with floaters to get them to their doctors appointments—Local 727 is only asking for that promise in writing.

 

12-Hour Stores:

• Under the CBA, Osco has hit its maximum number of stores with 12-hour shifts.  Though Osco agreed to maintain the status quo, the Company has recently claimed it has a different interpretation of the contract language.  Osco management seems to believe that the current language will “reset” the number of stores they may introduce 12-hour shifts to and that they will be permitted to transition an additional 50 stores after ratification.  Should Osco introduce 12-hour shifts at another 50 stores, the vast majority of Chicagoland’s Osco pharmacies would then have 12-hour shifts.

• Seeking the middle ground, the Local 727 bargaining committee agreed to allow Osco to expand 12-hour shifts to a small number of additional stores (5 stores per year) only if pharmacists in stores with 12-hour shifts be permitted to voluntarily reduce their schedules to a guaranteed 32-36 hours per week.  Under the Union’s proposal, part-time pharmacists would then be used to cover the remaining hours on a 12-hour shift.  Osco has rejected this fair proposal.

 

Past/Future Bargaining Sessions:

• While Osco has tried to paint the Union as dragging its feet, it has in fact been Osco negotiators who have repeatedly delayed negotiations.  Despite requests from Local 727 to begin negotiations well in advance of the contract’s expiration, Osco negotiators’ personal scheduling conflicts and unavailability prevented the parties from meeting until April.  After pharmacists overwhelmingly rejected Osco’s last offer, Osco negotiators’ personal conflicts and unavailability again delayed the parties from resuming negotiations.  Osco negotiators have been the only ones to cancel a bargaining session at the last minute.

• The Local 727 bargaining committee did end the parties’ last bargaining session at approximately 3 p.m. AFTER Osco management presented a regressive contract proposal, a proposal related to 12-hour shifts that Osco conveniently did not mention in its recent update.

• Local 727 and Osco will meet next on March 9.  Before the parties reconvene, Local 727 will host an informational meeting for pharmacists on February 9 at 6 P.M. in the Union Hall at 1300 W. Higgins Rd., Park Ridge.

​

Local 727 has made it clear to Osco representatives that it will not recommend ratifying a contract that hurts members.  To help the parties reach a fair agreement, the Local 727 bargaining committee has worked hard to seek the middle-ground, putting time and energy into developing creative contract proposals that protect pharmacists while also addressing concerns brought forward by Osco management.  Nevertheless, Osco has repeatedly dismissed or outright ignored its employees’ concerns and rejected the Union’s proposals.

 

Throughout negotiations, Osco management has attempted to justify its undervaluing of its own employees by shifting the focus onto its competitors.  While the Company claims wage freezes and low raises, as well as a two-tier wage system, are necessary to “remain competitive,” Osco’s parent company, Albertsons, does not appear to be struggling and in need of a competitive edge.  In fact, Albertsons most recent financials report net sales and revenue of $60.5 billion in fiscal year 2018.  The Company is doing so well that it is preparing for an Initial Public Offering, which is likely to pour large sums of money into the Company’s coffers.

 

For reasons that appear only to be selfish and stingy, Osco management has continued to press for contract provisions that threaten the health, safety, and jobs of pharmacists.  Even after pharmacists overwhelmingly rejected the Company’s first offer, Osco has not made significant movement on its outstanding contract proposals.  Instead, Osco management has begun putting forward regressive contract proposals.

 

“If Osco representatives are not clear on why pharmacists are outraged by their proposals, they clearly have not been listening,” said John Coli, Jr., Secretary-Treasurer of Local 727.  “Management is stooping to a new low.  Presenting a blatantly regressive proposal and then reaching out to pharmacists to spread lies is unconscionable.  Osco management is picking a fight with the wrong Union.  The Company will be held accountable for the actions of its representatives.  No matter how long it may take, Local 727 will not stop fighting for a fair contract for our members.”

 

Local 727 intends to file additional unfair labor practice charges against Osco as a result of the Company’s clear misrepresentations.  The Union’s previous ULP charge, filed over Osco’s refusal to provide requested information, is pending with Region 13 of the National Labor Relations Board.

 

Members with questions should reach out to Local 727 Business Representative Sean McGough at (847) 696-7500 or Sean@TeamstersLocal727.org.

 

Nothing in this article should be read as the union’s waiver of any legal argument, position or grievance(s), or as a waiver of any rights, arguments, or defenses under any contract, collective bargaining agreement, or applicable law. The union does not forfeit its right to make any and all supplemental arguments.