It is understandable that members of United Food and Commercial Workers want to protect the benefits their union has negotiated in a sector of the economy that is becoming dominated by non-union grocery chains.

That's why 5,000 employees walked off the job this week at Raley's and its Nob Hill Foods subsidiary, largely because the West Sacramento-based company says it is no longer able to cover health benefits for retirees eligible for Medicare.

Yet as this strike ends its first week, UFCW members and leaders need to ask themselves some hard questions: Is it realistic to expect Raley's, a local business that has lost market share to Wal-Mart and other nonunionized chains, to keep providing a benefit that few employers offer any more? And if an extended strike causes Raley's to slip further, doesn't that play into the hands of its nonunionized competition? Will that really help the cause of preserving grocery jobs as a middle-class occupation?

We'll acknowledge that Medicare isn't as comprehensive as the retiree health plans that a dwindling number of private employers continue to offer. As Paul Fronstin of the Employee Benefit Research Institute noted in The Bee earlier this week, Medicare covers only about 60 percent of costs on average, which is why some seniors purchase a supplement – "Medigap" coverage.

Still, Medicare remains, overall, an effective social insurance program that millions of seniors appreciate. It is not as though Raley's is proposing to toss retirees into the void. Union members also must recognize the competition Raley's faces from grocery chains that offer their employees little or no health benefits, and nothing for those who have retired.

According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, less than 18 percent of private-sector employees in the entire U.S. economy get such coverage from their employers.

Clearly, some Raley's workers think the union leadership is being unreasonable, given that they have crossed the picket lines to continue working. With little doubt, some are upset the UFCW didn't let members vote on Raley's "last and final" offer before striking. Although union members authorized a strike, the vote was taken back in mid-May.

Things have changed since then, both in Raley's offer and in the larger picture of Sacramento's economy. In September, Comcast announced it was closing three call centers in Northern California, including one in Sacramento, and Campbell Soup announced it was closing its Sacramento plant, a loss of 700 jobs. This region can't afford to lose more employers, especially ones that have been good to their employees and have given back to the community.

We'll acknowledge the difficulty of taking sides in this type of labor dispute, given the paucity of information. Raley's is a private company, so it difficult to know if its finances are as dire as the company claims.

What is known is Raley's is more dependent on the Sacramento market and smaller than Safeway, which this week announced a new contract with UFCW that protects the union's existing health insurance program.

There's a deal to be struck here, and it needs to happen soon, or else Raley's and its employees could watch their business go elsewhere during Thanksgiving and the rest of the holiday season. For that to happen, both sides need to start talking again. If the union is to give on retiree health benefits, Raley's will have to be willing to offer concessions, possibly on management of the health plans offered to existing workers.

For the good of this region – and the long-term health of Raley's and its employees – we'd urge both sides to settle their differences and end this strike.

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.

• Read more articles by the Editorial Board

Order Reprint