Good news for Anchor Brewing

[jswordy]

The billionaire owner behind yogurt brand Chobani has acquired Anchor Brewing Co, the historic San Francisco brewery that shut down last year.
Why it matters: Anchor Brewing, often called the godfather of steam beer, had become a staple in San Francisco, so its closure after 127 years of business sent shockwaves through the city.

Driving the news: Shepherd Futures, the family office of Chobani CEO and founder Hamdi Ulukaya, on Friday announced its acquisition of Anchor Brewing's assets.

• That includes the recipes, the Potrero Hill facilities, brewing equipment and original logos.

https://www.axios.com/local/san-francisco/2024/05/31/anchor-brewing-steam-beer-chobani-ulukaya

 

[ratflinger]

Nothing wrong with this, hope the folks are able to get their jobs back.

 

[Boatboy24]

Good news and good beers. Many years ago while on a business trip to SF, I went to the old SF Brewing Company where they'd brought Anchor in to do a vertical tasting of their holiday beer. Some had been aged for 6 years or more and were spectacular. I was in that pub a few times on that trip. It was such a cool, old bar.

 

[jswordy]

Good news and good beers. Many years ago while on a business trip to SF, I went to the old SF Brewing Company where they'd brought Anchor in to do a vertical tasting of their holiday beer. Some had been aged for 6 years or more and were spectacular. I was in that pub a few times on that trip. It was such a cool, old bar.

I am secretly hoping they grow it to national distribution.

 

[Jim Welch]

Unfortunately to make this work they may need to move production out of California. I read about this when it happened and knowing what I know and reading between the lines it was the effects of the unionization of the workers that led to the bankruptcy. Then there’s some of the crazy labor laws in that state.
The company was in business for 127 years and went under their first contract in December of 2019. Not even 4 years later it goes out of business.
Not all jobs should be unionized imo. If a job doesn’t have an inherent risk of death or serious injury it shouldn’t be unionized. Otherwise it’s just a money grab.
For the record, I work at a port and am a 44+ years member of the International Longshoreman's Association (ILA) and was a working officer in my Local for 30 of those years so I am in no way anti union but I have a job that has an inherent risk of death or serious injury. It’s been a long time but I’ve seen 4 men killed. I don’t say that lightly but firmly believe some jobs should absolutely be unionized while others should absolutely not be unionized.

 

[jswordy]

Unfortunately to make this work they may need to move production out of California. I read about this when it happened and knowing what I know and reading between the lines it was the effects of the unionization of the workers that led to the bankruptcy. Then there’s some of the crazy labor laws in that state.
The company was in business for 127 years and went under their first contract in December of 2019. Not even 4 years later it goes out of business.
Not all jobs should be unionized imo. If a job doesn’t have an inherent risk of death or serious injury it shouldn’t be unionized. Otherwise it’s just a money grab.
For the record, I work at a port and am a 44+ years member of the International Longshoreman's Association (ILA) and was a working officer in my Local for 30 of those years so I am in no way anti union but I have a job that has an inherent risk of death or serious injury. It’s been a long time but I’ve seen 4 men killed. I don’t say that lightly but firmly believe some jobs should absolutely be unionized while others should absolutely not be unionized.

When all else fails, blame the union and the labor laws. Check.

 

[Jim Welch]

When all else fails, blame the union and the labor laws. Check.

The history speaks for itself, pub workers have no business in a Longshoreman’s Union, now the brewery itself? Yes, that’s an industrial environment, and has SOME risk, but a bar? Are you serious?
If you read my entire post you’d see I AM a Longshoreman! People in the pub have little or no risk, and being in a Union, much less a Longshore Union is just a money grab. To wit: they got nearly a 25% wage gain over 3 years. Sorry to burst a bubble but that is exorbitant to say the least AND it was the final nail in their coffin. One can negotiate oneself right out of a job and that’s what these jokers did. Check mate!

 

[bstnh1]

IMHO, unions served a needed purpose long ago. But they have outlived their usefulness and now serve only to fatten the wallets of union officials.

 

[Jim Welch]

The purpose to protect the health and safety of workers is still and will always be a needed purpose. That’s why I draw a bright bold line between dangerous and non dangerous jobs.
Longshore work isn’t the most dangerous job but on average it has a higher on the job death rate than police or firemen.
I’ve witnessed 3 fatal accidents which snuffed out the lives of 4 men I knew quite well and every accident could’ve been avoided and were directly due to management practices. Seeing a coworker die like this will definitely galvanize you.
As far as fattening the wallets…that generally is the very upper echelons of unions. But I agree the upper echelons tend to be way overpaid.
Local officers are dismally underpaid for what they do, at least I was. But for me it was about keeping the camel’s nose out of the tent to put it metaphorically. I handled grievances, local contract negotiations, and recording meeting minutes.

 

[jswordy]

Some interesting quotes in here...

https://www.brewbound.com/news/anchor-brewing-acquired-by-billionaire-chobani-founder

 

[jswordy]

IMHO, unions served a needed purpose long ago. But they have outlived their usefulness and now serve only to fatten the wallets of union officials.

That's what my non-union nephew, who has worked in a Tennessee Nissan plant for 20 years, used to say. Like most Southerners, he was vocally and vociferously against unions and had a whole bushel basket of reasons.

Then he started noticing how the only time they got raises was if the unions in the Big Three got raises in new contracts (though the nonunion raises at Southern plants are a percentage of what the union plants get and are markedly smaller for the same work, as are the salaries overall, and there is no signing bonus since the workers are at-will).

And as he got to be in his mid-50s, installing those front subassemblies from underneath got to be real painful work. Knowing that he was an aging worker, Nissan worked him in that job for five more years before they moved him to an inspection position. They do that to try to shake out the older workers. You know, get 'em to quit early. It works a lot of the time, as they physically collapse. He had to have a hip replacement because of it, but "they are NOT gonna make me quit early!"

Nissan also thinks its best for its nonunion workers to take their personal time for plant shutdowns.

If you walk onto a shop floor wearing a color of shoes or shirt the boss doesn't like in a nonunion, so-called "right to work state" plant, you can be summarily fired. No ifs, ands, or buts – and no employee recourse – with unrepresented at-will employment.

One extremely unrecognized benefit of union representation is that it brings a formalized process of arbitrating grievances so that workers have some recourse and there is a defined communication channel with the company. In Europe, VW works closely with the union there to ensure a happy workforce, and it is expected to do so in America, too.

I worked a nonunion job in Alabama for 19 years, in which the employees were guaranteed in writing that as long as they did not join a union, they would not be laid off. Then it was changed to they would not be laid off due to technological change. Then it was changed to they would not be laid off as long as operations were 7 days a week. You got it, they cut to 6 days and threw a bunch of us out on the street. Unrepresented and at-will, baby. Get lost.

As far as blaming the union for a plant moving, closing, or the loss of jobs, I know that is a knee-jerk reaction that is usually far from the truth.

I just think there should be a fair and level playing field for employees to consider and vote on whether they want to be unionized or not (there typically isn't). In Chattanooga, VW voted yes. In Alabama, two Mercedes plants voted no (after six Southern governors harrangued them about it). Let the workers decide, without all the pressure they usually get the way it is done now.

 

[ChuckD]

I guarantee you the management team is organized and speaking with one voice to maximize their position. Why would anybody think it’s better to deny that same thing to the workers.

 

[Obbnw]

Today I learned why they call it steam beer. Also found an interesting article on what led to their demise. The article basically said COVID, distribution, and mismanagement. COVID because a large percentage of their beer went to restaurants.

 

[Jim Welch]

In 2019 the inflation rate was below 2% and a contract was negotiated that gave a nearly 25% raise over 3 years. Thats about 8% per year! If that was negotiated this year I’d say it was a good and reasonable contract. I’ve negotiated contracts for my local for 30 years and have seen other locals negotiate such a “good” contract they actually lost work. They actually made less money with their higher rate! Then they had to agree to massive pay cuts, below what they’d previously made, to get the work back that they lost!
That is what happened here, it is not a “knee jerk reaction” to blame the union in this case. I wouldn’t be surprised if their union agrees to little or no pay raises with this new outfit since the contract is long since expired and they’re likely were working under monthly extensions until the shutdown last year. The new owner is no fool and would be foolish to buy the outfit without an agreement with the Longshoreman's union there.
while I lay a lot of blame on the union Sapporo is not off the hook. They played a roll in this too but management types usually are always able to find a comparable job, not so with the average working person. This is why it’s important for a union to push but not too hard, if things go south it’ll be the working people that take the biggest hit. I’m no friend of management, I always said at union meetings, it’s easy to tell when management is lying to you-if their lips are moving they’re probably lying.

 

[jswordy]

In 2019 the inflation rate was below 2% and a contract was negotiated that gave a nearly 25% raise over 3 years. Thats about 8% per year! If that was negotiated this year I’d say it was a good and reasonable contract. I’ve negotiated contracts for my local for 30 years and have seen other locals negotiate such a “good” contract they actually lost work. They actually made less money with their higher rate! Then they had to agree to massive pay cuts, below what they’d previously made, to get the work back that they lost!
That is what happened here, it is not a “knee jerk reaction” to blame the union in this case. I wouldn’t be surprised if their union agrees to little or no pay raises with this new outfit since the contract is long since expired and they’re likely were working under monthly extensions until the shutdown last year. The new owner is no fool and would be foolish to buy the outfit without an agreement with the Longshoreman's union there.
while I lay a lot of blame on the union Sapporo is not off the hook. They played a roll in this too but management types usually are always able to find a comparable job, not so with the average working person. This is why it’s important for a union to push but not too hard, if things go south it’ll be the working people that take the biggest hit. I’m no friend of management, I always said at union meetings, it’s easy to tell when management is lying to you-if their lips are moving they’re probably lying.

I don't "blame" participants in contract negotiations from which one side is always going to emerge on top. Contracts are complex and contain many moving parts, so for example, the salary side may not work out great, while job protections for certain high-wage job classes does. But there's gonna be an overall winner and a loser in each contract round, and as someone who spent my early life in a union town, I can say that the union wins sometimes and the company wins sometimes. It amazes me the union EVER wins, really, with as much power as the company wields. You say the workers lost jobs, but what we don't know is if they would have lost them, or even more, otherwise. BUT the company knew that before they started the negotiations. Just one small example of how the power scale is still tilted, even with a union. As far as the pay cuts, as I said, the company almost always has the upper hand in wage negotiations. It amazes me the unions win as much as they do.

But let's not just focus on the wage aspect. As I said, the most important aspect of unionization is that it brings a formalized process of arbitrating grievances so that workers have some recourse and there is a defined communication channel with the company. That is HUGE when it comes to curbing arbitrary management decisions.

Here's an example from just two weeks ago. A friend quit his job at one nonunion place and went to work as a welder for for Gravely, which makes the mowers, because he got a bump in salary. He loved the new job – for exactly three weeks, after which management laid off a big chunk of the lowest seniority personnel, including all recent hires. THREE WEEKS, and he is on unemployment and trying to figure out how to pay his bills. Why did they even hire those latest people? Because they can, to boost inventory before a cutback or for other corporate goals. Then, bye-bye! Unrepresented and at-will, baby.

But anyway... we should just use logic. I mean, everybody knows that when we are talking about a giant corporation, a single worker on his or her own, across the span of a career, has MUCH GREATER bargaining power than workers do if they all band together! That's just logic, right?

 

[Jim Welch]

I don't "blame" participants in contract negotiations from which one side is always going to emerge on top. Contracts are complex and contain many moving parts, so for example, the salary side may not work out great, while job protections for certain high-wage job classes does. But there's gonna be an overall winner and a loser in each contract round, and as someone who spent my early life in a union town, I can say that the union wins sometimes and the company wins sometimes. It amazes me the union EVER wins, really, with as much power as the company wields. You say the workers lost jobs, but what we don't know is if they would have lost them, or even more, otherwise. BUT the company knew that before they started the negotiations. Just one small example of how the power scale is still tilted, even with a union. As far as the pay cuts, as I said, the company almost always has the upper hand in wage negotiations. It amazes me the unions win as much as they do.

But let's not just focus on the wage aspect. As I said, the most important aspect of unionization is that it brings a formalized process of arbitrating grievances so that workers have some recourse and there is a defined communication channel with the company. That is HUGE when it comes to curbing arbitrary management decisions.

Here's an example from just two weeks ago. A friend quit his job at one nonunion place and went to work as a welder for for Gravely, which makes the mowers, because he got a bump in salary. He loved the new job – for exactly three weeks, after which management laid off a big chunk of the lowest seniority personnel, including all recent hires. THREE WEEKS, and he is on unemployment and trying to figure out how to pay his bills. Why did they even hire those latest people? Because they can, to boost inventory before a cutback or for other corporate goals. Then, bye-bye! Unrepresented and at-will, baby.

But anyway... we should just use logic. I mean, everybody knows that when we are talking about a giant corporation, a single worker on his or her own, across the span of a career, has MUCH GREATER bargaining power than workers do if they all band together! That's just logic, right?

You’ve completely lost my point and judging from your comments I don’t think you are understanding what I’m saying. I’ve been in many many contract negotiations. The BEST contract is when BOTH sides think they’ve gotten screwed! I know that’s hard to get one’s mind around but it’s the brutal truth. That was not a good contract for the company, those raises were way out of line for that time. Now the employees have zero income, they won the contract battle and lost the employment war. I don’t know how many times I have to say it, but I’m to this day in my Local. I face union issues almost every day, even though im no longer an officer the current officers are always coming to me for advice. As a leader one has to be careful what you ask for, you might get it!

 

[jswordy]

You’ve completely lost my point and judging from your comments I don’t think you are understanding what I’m saying. I’ve been in many many contract negotiations. The BEST contract is when BOTH sides think they’ve gotten screwed! I know that’s hard to get one’s mind around but it’s the brutal truth. That was not a good contract for the company, those raises were way out of line for that time. Now the employees have zero income, they won the contract battle and lost the employment war. I don’t know how many times I have to say it, but I’m to this day in my Local. I face union issues almost every day, even though im no longer an officer the current officers are always coming to me for advice. As a leader one has to be careful what you ask for, you might get it!

Sounds great, Jim, and I do understand your perspective. I'll close my part of this discussion by saying that I disagree with your original premise that "If a job doesn’t have an inherent risk of death or serious injury it shouldn’t be unionized. Otherwise it’s just a money grab," and move on.

My view is that:

1.) Any workers in any profession who may wish to organize and collectively bargain should be allowed a level playing field to vote on that proposition without repercussions. (They don't have that currently.)

2.) Unionization isn't solely about money. Again, union representation brings a formalized process of arbitrating grievances so that workers have some recourse and some protections, and there is a defined communication channel with the company. This process is in daily use, and it directly affects the worker's rights and wellbeing on the job. It also benefits the company by addressing problems rather than letting resentments build.

3.) In any contract negotiation, the company has far more information at its disposal than the union does.

As the son of a UAW steward who once had his head bashed in by company "security" during a strike, but who then later on moved into management and then once had his car pummeled when he had to drive through a picket line to get in to work, I've seen both sides and then some.

 

[winemanden]

Problem is that people with good salaries tend to forget that without the Unions, they wouldn't be getting good salaries, even if they don't belong to a Union.
PM Margaret Thatcher convinced lots of younger people that Unions were evil, even to the extent of offering cash to the workers in the National Security Centre if they left the unions. Unfortunately, the result of this is that thousands of people who weren't even old enough to work at that time are now working for shit wages!

Just a thought. Should this thread not be allowed? Is this not politics?

NMU mineworkers union, Bakers Union, Transport & General Union. Fifty years a Union member.

 

[ChuckD]

Just a thought. Should this thread not be allowed? Is this not politics?

You are the first to mention a politician. before that I would say it’s not political… but it has certainly strayed very far from wine making .

 

[winemaker81]

You are the first to mention a politician. before that I would say it’s not political… but it has certainly strayed very far from wine making .

This is general chit-chat, so the overall discussion is fine, as long as it remains polite.

Just a thought. Should this thread not be allowed? Is this not politics?

Politics are generally forbidden because far too many folks cannot help but get wound up about them. As long as it remains polite and calm, it's ok.

If not?