Save Mart retirees are showing how worker power can make inroads against even the biggest bullies. A group of four retired Save Mart workers has joined together to fight back against the company that persuaded them to accept extra health benefits in exchange for not joining the United Food and Commercial Workers Union.

The company claimed the benefits they offered the workers were “greater or equal” to those of the benefits offered by the union. What the company failed to disclose is that, unlike the union benefits, the perks they promised could be cut off at any time. And they were.

After nearly 40 years of giving nonunion staff extra benefits to keep them nonunion, the grocery chain pulled the promised extra $1,000 monthly health care stipend many Save Mart retirees had come to rely on.

SEIU Local 1021 Vice President of Organizing Brandon Dawkins said, “While employers may offer exciting perks to prevent workers from unionizing, there is no guarantee they will follow through on any of their ‘promises.’ Without the union’s power, workers have no say in how their employer treats them. Unions are necessary to ensure we receive the benefits we deserve without fear of them being stripped away.”

According to the complaint filed by the retirees, “Save Mart’s motive for misrepresenting the terms and value of the Plan was simple: to save money and suppress union activity. Save Mart repeatedly and successfully used the medical benefits provided by the Plan to persuade employees to refrain from joining the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), a union that represented many grocery workers including at certain Save Mart stores during the relevant period, and to work in positions that were not covered by the UFCW’s collective bargaining.”

But there’s good news! A San Francisco judge has ruled that the class action lawsuit filed by the former Save Mart workers can move forward, saying, “If the alleged misstatement (the ‘what’) is that Save Mart would provide nonunion employees benefits as good or better than those provided to union employees, the first amended complaint has sufficiently alleged ‘how’ that statement is false.”

We look forward to seeing this group of small but mighty workers bring this fight to the higher courts.