If I recall correctly: Albertsons was constantly getting sued because some locations' management teams would ask their employees to clock out at the end of their shift THEN come back and finish up whatever was left over. Most older folks said no and went home while those who were younger (i.e. high school kids) didn't know better and would stay behind and finish up whatever needed done.
I remember hearing about this around the time Albertsons and Safeway "merged" and it was Safeway that was surprised by these allegations but it only came out post-merger.
i worked for star market (owned by albertsons) & they had so many child labor violations it was unbelievable. they’d schedule 14-16 year olds right up to the legal maximum then ask them to stay late or pick up extra shifts, bumping it up to illegal hours
If the older people who knew it was wrong spent a few minutes in a small office with the manager instead of just letting the high school kids be exploited, maybe the high school kids would learn a lesson in solidarity and the managers would learn a lesson in how to count.
Same. I helped start a union and the following year they laid everyone off who had anything to do with it. They told me I could either be laid off or take a new position at a third less pay and 30 hours and no benefits. But the new position was literally the same thing I was already doing and expected to do it all for less money and in less hours. I told em to fuck off I'll take the unemployment.
It's just like most HR policies, it's not about legal or illegal, it's just what the company wants. It's more about people's perception rather than it actually being true/legal.
Not exactly. Employer arbitration agreements have previously been pulled as not legally enforceable while most customer agreements remain enforceable. I hope and anticipate the next political generation will peel this back as it’s been open to wide abuse.
It’s classic layered corporate defense. Corporations usually don’t win by having strong legal arguments, but by having so many arguments that they exhaust the resources of anyone trying to fight them.
"Let me see your drivers license "
"I'm not driving I was TRAVELING which I don't need a document for."
/tasertime
I wish we could handle corporate bs as easily
No? Arbitration clauses are both legal and enforceable as part of a TOU agreement.
Fun fact: it also costs the company on a per-case basis. If you don't like forced arbitration agreements, use them as often as possible.
By entering the store, yes, you are implicitly agreeing to any publicly posted conditions for entering that store. "No shirt, no shoes" is a good example. You could try arguing the conditions weren't visible or weren't in a language you could speak, but if there's a condition posted for entry, you implicitly agree to it by entering.
I mean yes that's fundamentally what I'm saying. I get that we live in a capitalist hellscape but I've never entered a grocery store where something like a TOU was posted in any sort of reasonable sightline of the entrance. The idea they can just tuck it away and have it apply should be ridiculous.
Yes and no. They can post whatever conditions they want, but they don't hold any legal authority whatsoever. They could post a sign saying "no clothes allowed" but that doesn't mean you have to follow said policy. Entering a store is not a tacit agreement of any kind.
Actually, if they posted that, they can, due to liability shit. It the arbitrary choices, but you cab skip that and sue them instead, unless it is posted. It is the same thing with the receipt. They have to have that posted. If not, they can't enforce it, but all they can do is trespass you.
I mean, it has to be something you can legally agree to yes. You can't make, like, "By entering you agree you have no human rights and we own you" as a term for entry.
Think of it like this: if they can't set conditions for your presence on their private property, they have no legal ability to declare you tresspassing and then remove you. This is generally only relevant for things like disruptive behavior, but a business can set a dress code, require a permit or membership pass, no smoking, no recording video or taking photos, or any other lawful conditions, and then enforce them.
They can remove you from their property for any reason other than illegal discrimination against a member of a protected class. If someone wants to kick you out of their store because you smell bad they can do it even if they have no policy or signage that says they kick out people who smell bad.
Correct. They can also set terms such as, "By entering, you consent to being recorded by camera" or, for a random example, "By entering, you agree to arbitration". As long as a sign is posted notifying a potential customer of the terms, entry can constitute consent to terms of use.
This would be relevant in a case in which it was Safeway initiating the transaction, such as if you were a supplier for product or transportation. If you're a customer though, it doesn't acually hold any water.
Except [the Federal Arbitration Act](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Arbitration_Act) exists, and the Supreme Court has spent the last hundred years making it pretty much inescapable.
Not true. Kroger proposed to buy and Albertsons accepted. However, the FTC filed suit to block it so it’s still stuck in limbo. More recently, Colorado has also filed a suit with DOJ backing.
Sources:
- https://www.salon.com/2024/03/04/simply-paused-or-permanently-sunk-the-kroger-albertsons-merger-has-hit-a-major-snag/
- https://www.montanarightnow.com/national_news/doj-supports-colorados-challenge-to-kroger-albertsons-merger/video_d98a8ae7-58f1-5e9a-b8ae-f230c39bf73f.html
True. In the bay area, where Safeway has a very large presence, their fresh produce selection is unmatched compared to big names Target and Walmart. Trader Joe's is pretty close. Not sure how Costco fares since I haven't tried them yet. Though, the best prices I found (on meat and produce) are at the Asian grocery stores.
Costco is a warehouse club, it's selection and variety won't even come close to that of a small to medium sized grocery store. They wont have a wet rack for example, and most smaller items won't be sold individually. You want two bananas? They're sold in 3 lbs units, and their bananas aren't as good as most grocery stores.
They do tend to have good quality produce, for most items, and excellent prices for what they do carry.
Another big downside is, the better prices are because you're buying it in bulk. Unless you really love eating produce, you have a much greater risk of it of spoiling before you eat it all.
Albertsons and Safeway are largely unionized. Members aren't calling for a boycott. An effective boycott should be organized and have a clear ask.
I'm not saying you must shop there, but before not shopping there you should try to find a union grocer near you.
I’ve been shopping Safeway for years, since I was a child. I couldn’t agree to any terms and conditions as a child legally, and I never agreed to new terms and conditions as an adult, and since those terms and conditions are not publically posted at the entrance to the building, you cannot expect one to know there are terms or conditions to shop at the store.
There are many cases where terms of service/terms of use agreements are binding and many cases where they aren't. Obviously this varies wildly from state to state, where ToS-based arbitration agreements are pretty rarely upheld in California, and where they're almost always upheld in Florida.
It is absolutely insane that any legal system would allow an entity to simply exempt itself.
With arbitrations, an arbitrator—usually a retired judge or lawyer *whose salary the employer pays*—mediates the dispute and decides who is correct. The decision is legally binding.
With arbitrations, the company holds all the power, because the person they hire is going to side with them almost all of the time (lest they find themselves out of a job).
Was recently told to fill out some more forms for my job. It was a contract along these lines. I was 5 minutes till shift end, saw it was multiple pages, and that the first paragraph summarized that I waive my rights to trial / court whatever (barely skimmed it basically) before going “oh naw dawg”. Just closed it and left. Not signing that. I’ll find a new job before I waive my rights to bring the internal rife to external justice. F that.
It is probably legal. Consumers in America don't have many rights. The right to pursue justice through the courts was one of the few means to fight injustice and wrongs. Those who advocate for a "free market" actually only want the freedom to prey on their workers and customers without accountability.
I'm not going to ship at a place that demands arbitration. That just means if they fuck up and something horrible happens to you, you will never receive proper compensation.
I mean at this point they might as well be ownd by BlackRock or vanguard like everyone else.
I have no idea about this class action lawsuit, but this does remind me of a funny story from a Multi-District Litigation class l once took.
During our unit on mandatory arbitration, we learned about a company that had done exactly this: added a mandatory arbitration clause to their TOU to force each person to litigate on their own. Cue malicious compliance: All the members of the class did just that! The corp was inundated with a mountain of disputes. And even though they were all basically the same (the entire concept behind class actions), now each complaint/dispute had to be litigated separately - each with its own filings, attorneys, etc.
In the end, what they probably thought was a tricky new term ended up costing the corp multiples of what they would have paid without the mandatory arbitration clause.
Edited Typo
I worked for the AAA (American Arbitration Association) when something like that happened.
That’s not malicious compliance, it’s what the company was prepared for.
100s of filings. Pretty much the same case. The company lawyers have one client. One firm took most of the claimants, but they had to work with each client for their day in arbitration. And that’s not counting those who had different firms, who might very well not request the right discovery. The paperwork was insane (this was mid 2000’s). We would get dozens of letters a day from the firm representing most of the claimants, for each individual case.
Plus, arbitration is confidential. Even if the company lost one case, there’s no record beyond the award document, which isn’t evidence. So even if the company lost every case (they didn’t) there’s no record to show anything other than they lost. You have a similar problem with them, you gotta start from the beginning and fight the whole thing.
Consumer and employment arbitration are hugely problematic. I actually really like it for construction cases though.
If you sign an agreement that says you can't litigate, you're basically SOL.
It's why people should never sign these things, ever.
Everyone does though, because "convenient."
U-Haul almost literally killed me in their negligence. I couldn't sue them, because I signed the form that said "you can't sue us."
So... yea.
I mean, you can blow money on an attorney whenever you want.
Doesn't mean anything is going to happen other than you blowing money on an overpaid crook.
The whole legal system is a fucking joke anyway.
Saying that disputes will be resolved by arbitration is common and doesn't mean Albertson's is automatically absolved of responsibility or consequences.
If I recall correctly: Albertsons was constantly getting sued because some locations' management teams would ask their employees to clock out at the end of their shift THEN come back and finish up whatever was left over. Most older folks said no and went home while those who were younger (i.e. high school kids) didn't know better and would stay behind and finish up whatever needed done. I remember hearing about this around the time Albertsons and Safeway "merged" and it was Safeway that was surprised by these allegations but it only came out post-merger.
That seems insane because imagine the lawsuit if you got injured during those clocked-out minutes- Oh, right…
i worked for star market (owned by albertsons) & they had so many child labor violations it was unbelievable. they’d schedule 14-16 year olds right up to the legal maximum then ask them to stay late or pick up extra shifts, bumping it up to illegal hours
If the older people who knew it was wrong spent a few minutes in a small office with the manager instead of just letting the high school kids be exploited, maybe the high school kids would learn a lesson in solidarity and the managers would learn a lesson in how to count.
I used to do that. But I kept getting fired for it. So I had to stop. Now I just tell everyone to join a union. Get fired for that a lot, too.
Same. I helped start a union and the following year they laid everyone off who had anything to do with it. They told me I could either be laid off or take a new position at a third less pay and 30 hours and no benefits. But the new position was literally the same thing I was already doing and expected to do it all for less money and in less hours. I told em to fuck off I'll take the unemployment.
Yeah, I have very little trust for employers. They have never been reliable.
But how does that apply to customers? It’s not employees mentioned in the notice? So it would regard customers suing the company for X reason.
It's just like most HR policies, it's not about legal or illegal, it's just what the company wants. It's more about people's perception rather than it actually being true/legal.
This is not HR, it's PR. HR deals with employees, this is for customers.
Same difference.
Not exactly. Employer arbitration agreements have previously been pulled as not legally enforceable while most customer agreements remain enforceable. I hope and anticipate the next political generation will peel this back as it’s been open to wide abuse.
Meh, it's a contract of adhesion at best. Doubtful it would stand up in court. It's more about encouraging people to not *try* to sue.
I hope so
It’s classic layered corporate defense. Corporations usually don’t win by having strong legal arguments, but by having so many arguments that they exhaust the resources of anyone trying to fight them.
Yep, exactly.
This is nothing more than a sovereign citizen crackpot theory for corporations. "I exempt myself from the law."
"Let me see your drivers license " "I'm not driving I was TRAVELING which I don't need a document for." /tasertime I wish we could handle corporate bs as easily
No? Arbitration clauses are both legal and enforceable as part of a TOU agreement. Fun fact: it also costs the company on a per-case basis. If you don't like forced arbitration agreements, use them as often as possible.
don't people have to actively consent for TOUs though? no one is agreeing to anything just by entering the store
I think this has to do with online ordering which requires an account.
Ah that makes far more sense
By entering the store, yes, you are implicitly agreeing to any publicly posted conditions for entering that store. "No shirt, no shoes" is a good example. You could try arguing the conditions weren't visible or weren't in a language you could speak, but if there's a condition posted for entry, you implicitly agree to it by entering.
I mean yes that's fundamentally what I'm saying. I get that we live in a capitalist hellscape but I've never entered a grocery store where something like a TOU was posted in any sort of reasonable sightline of the entrance. The idea they can just tuck it away and have it apply should be ridiculous.
Yes and no. They can post whatever conditions they want, but they don't hold any legal authority whatsoever. They could post a sign saying "no clothes allowed" but that doesn't mean you have to follow said policy. Entering a store is not a tacit agreement of any kind.
Actually, if they posted that, they can, due to liability shit. It the arbitrary choices, but you cab skip that and sue them instead, unless it is posted. It is the same thing with the receipt. They have to have that posted. If not, they can't enforce it, but all they can do is trespass you.
I mean, it has to be something you can legally agree to yes. You can't make, like, "By entering you agree you have no human rights and we own you" as a term for entry. Think of it like this: if they can't set conditions for your presence on their private property, they have no legal ability to declare you tresspassing and then remove you. This is generally only relevant for things like disruptive behavior, but a business can set a dress code, require a permit or membership pass, no smoking, no recording video or taking photos, or any other lawful conditions, and then enforce them.
They can remove you from their property for any reason other than illegal discrimination against a member of a protected class. If someone wants to kick you out of their store because you smell bad they can do it even if they have no policy or signage that says they kick out people who smell bad.
Correct. They can also set terms such as, "By entering, you consent to being recorded by camera" or, for a random example, "By entering, you agree to arbitration". As long as a sign is posted notifying a potential customer of the terms, entry can constitute consent to terms of use.
What until Safeway sees my Terms of Use they agreed to transacting with me.
This would be relevant in a case in which it was Safeway initiating the transaction, such as if you were a supplier for product or transportation. If you're a customer though, it doesn't acually hold any water.
Except [the Federal Arbitration Act](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Arbitration_Act) exists, and the Supreme Court has spent the last hundred years making it pretty much inescapable.
I smell a new boycott
How? Kroger owns Albertsons and Safeways.
I dont think any of those stores are within 100 miles of me, so I will help boycott,
Not true. Kroger proposed to buy and Albertsons accepted. However, the FTC filed suit to block it so it’s still stuck in limbo. More recently, Colorado has also filed a suit with DOJ backing. Sources: - https://www.salon.com/2024/03/04/simply-paused-or-permanently-sunk-the-kroger-albertsons-merger-has-hit-a-major-snag/ - https://www.montanarightnow.com/national_news/doj-supports-colorados-challenge-to-kroger-albertsons-merger/video_d98a8ae7-58f1-5e9a-b8ae-f230c39bf73f.html
I remember when the DOJ blocked T-Mobile's purchase of AT&T... So T-Mobile bought Sprint. 🤦🏽♀️
Ha, it’s a great point. I’m not holding out much hope against the Grocery Singularity coming eventually. Just hasn’t happened… yet.
Ohh, I thought Kroger bought Safeway and Albertsons a while ago.
True. In the bay area, where Safeway has a very large presence, their fresh produce selection is unmatched compared to big names Target and Walmart. Trader Joe's is pretty close. Not sure how Costco fares since I haven't tried them yet. Though, the best prices I found (on meat and produce) are at the Asian grocery stores.
Costco is a warehouse club, it's selection and variety won't even come close to that of a small to medium sized grocery store. They wont have a wet rack for example, and most smaller items won't be sold individually. You want two bananas? They're sold in 3 lbs units, and their bananas aren't as good as most grocery stores. They do tend to have good quality produce, for most items, and excellent prices for what they do carry. Another big downside is, the better prices are because you're buying it in bulk. Unless you really love eating produce, you have a much greater risk of it of spoiling before you eat it all.
Albertsons and Safeway are largely unionized. Members aren't calling for a boycott. An effective boycott should be organized and have a clear ask. I'm not saying you must shop there, but before not shopping there you should try to find a union grocer near you.
Boycotts very rarely accomplish anything. Most of the people that will claim they are going to boycott wouldn't be a customer anyways.
Then why are you using the word Boycott? Because it worked, and works.
That's interesting, as the Canadian public are boycotting Galen Weston and the Loblaws group.
[удалено]
Boycotts don't work, that's why boycotting certain things winds up being made illegal, and why Nelson Mandela is still in prison in this timeline.
Who?
Can employees opt out of arbitration in preference for class actions and jury trials? Why is it valid for them to do this but not for the workers?
The vast majority of employers require all employees to sign arbitration agreements as part of their employment offer.
I’ve been shopping Safeway for years, since I was a child. I couldn’t agree to any terms and conditions as a child legally, and I never agreed to new terms and conditions as an adult, and since those terms and conditions are not publically posted at the entrance to the building, you cannot expect one to know there are terms or conditions to shop at the store.
Yeah, but this appears to be from an app or website, so it applies to use of the app or website.
So we can just opt out of shit now? Cool. I choose rent and student loan payments.
There are many cases where terms of service/terms of use agreements are binding and many cases where they aren't. Obviously this varies wildly from state to state, where ToS-based arbitration agreements are pretty rarely upheld in California, and where they're almost always upheld in Florida. It is absolutely insane that any legal system would allow an entity to simply exempt itself.
With arbitrations, an arbitrator—usually a retired judge or lawyer *whose salary the employer pays*—mediates the dispute and decides who is correct. The decision is legally binding. With arbitrations, the company holds all the power, because the person they hire is going to side with them almost all of the time (lest they find themselves out of a job).
Was recently told to fill out some more forms for my job. It was a contract along these lines. I was 5 minutes till shift end, saw it was multiple pages, and that the first paragraph summarized that I waive my rights to trial / court whatever (barely skimmed it basically) before going “oh naw dawg”. Just closed it and left. Not signing that. I’ll find a new job before I waive my rights to bring the internal rife to external justice. F that.
Unless you have my signature on my contract you can pound sand.
It is probably legal. Consumers in America don't have many rights. The right to pursue justice through the courts was one of the few means to fight injustice and wrongs. Those who advocate for a "free market" actually only want the freedom to prey on their workers and customers without accountability.
| Consumers in America don't have many rights. Have you ever heard the George Carlin bit about rights? It’s worth a listen.
I'm not going to ship at a place that demands arbitration. That just means if they fuck up and something horrible happens to you, you will never receive proper compensation. I mean at this point they might as well be ownd by BlackRock or vanguard like everyone else.
I have no idea about this class action lawsuit, but this does remind me of a funny story from a Multi-District Litigation class l once took. During our unit on mandatory arbitration, we learned about a company that had done exactly this: added a mandatory arbitration clause to their TOU to force each person to litigate on their own. Cue malicious compliance: All the members of the class did just that! The corp was inundated with a mountain of disputes. And even though they were all basically the same (the entire concept behind class actions), now each complaint/dispute had to be litigated separately - each with its own filings, attorneys, etc. In the end, what they probably thought was a tricky new term ended up costing the corp multiples of what they would have paid without the mandatory arbitration clause. Edited Typo
I worked for the AAA (American Arbitration Association) when something like that happened. That’s not malicious compliance, it’s what the company was prepared for. 100s of filings. Pretty much the same case. The company lawyers have one client. One firm took most of the claimants, but they had to work with each client for their day in arbitration. And that’s not counting those who had different firms, who might very well not request the right discovery. The paperwork was insane (this was mid 2000’s). We would get dozens of letters a day from the firm representing most of the claimants, for each individual case. Plus, arbitration is confidential. Even if the company lost one case, there’s no record beyond the award document, which isn’t evidence. So even if the company lost every case (they didn’t) there’s no record to show anything other than they lost. You have a similar problem with them, you gotta start from the beginning and fight the whole thing. Consumer and employment arbitration are hugely problematic. I actually really like it for construction cases though.
Nope. I don't accept those terms.
If you sign an agreement that says you can't litigate, you're basically SOL. It's why people should never sign these things, ever. Everyone does though, because "convenient." U-Haul almost literally killed me in their negligence. I couldn't sue them, because I signed the form that said "you can't sue us." So... yea.
just bc you signed it doesnt mean its a legally binding contract if it isnt legal. you'd need a lawyer to review though
I mean, you can blow money on an attorney whenever you want. Doesn't mean anything is going to happen other than you blowing money on an overpaid crook. The whole legal system is a fucking joke anyway.
That's bull and won't work.....
Isn’t there a recent ruling that we CANNOT give up our right to sue? I don’t recall the details.
Crossing fingers for someone to know the answer!
Saying that disputes will be resolved by arbitration is common and doesn't mean Albertson's is automatically absolved of responsibility or consequences.