What's The Deal With The Stop & Shop Strike?

As you may be aware, the management of "Stop & Shop" (one of the largest supermarkets on the East Coast) has been in an ongoing contract dispute with its employees.  On April 11, the local unions that represent some thirty-one thousand workers walked off the job, demanding a better deal from the company.  Here's a quick summary of the issues behind the dispute, and what has been offered. 

• Issue #1: Wages and Salaries.  

The unions claim that the company's proposed contract cuts employee pay, and replaces raises with annual bonuses(1).  In addition, the workers allege that Stop & Shop's offer eliminates certain weekend benefits.

  What's The Fact, Jack?

According to the proposal detailed at the company web site(2), all associates will receive increases in pay.  Additionally, Stop & Shop says that there will be no changes to weekend benefits.  

• Issue #2: Pension and Retirement Plans.  

Striking employees state that, under the current proposal, the company's share of pension monies would be greatly reduced (or eliminated altogether)(1).  The unions have requested that management agree to a twenty percent increase in such benefits.  

  What's The Fact, Jack?

Stop & Shop has agreed to the union's request regarding pension plans(2).  Part-time employees will see their benefits maintained at the current funding level.  

• Issue #3: Health Care.  

The unions claim that under the current proposal, their members would be forced to pay more money for standard healthcare benefits(1).  In addition, the workers allege that the company plans to end coverage for spouses of employees.  

  What's The Fact, Jack?

According to the company's proposal, employees will pay a little more for their healthcare than they presently do(2).  However, this cost will remain far less than the national average for worker heath plans.  Regarding coverage for spouses, some of the presently offered programs will no longer be available.

As you can see, many of the claims made by the striking unions are false, or at least incorrect in their logic.  The workers say that Stop & Shop's offer is unfair, and "unreasonable"(1).  However, looking at the facts in front of me, I believe the company's offer to be very generous.  

The question presenting itself is, to quote an old labor song, "which side are you on".  Do you support the striking workers, or are you on the side of company management? Personally, I will probably choose to cross the picket lines; some may decide to do differently, which is their right.  As is usually the case, there are two sides to this dispute.  The proper choice is a decision that is up to you, the individual shopper.  Choose wisely, my friends!

1. “Negotiations Update.” UFCW 919, United Food & Commercial Workers Union, 16 Apr. 2019, http://www.ufcw919.org/negotiations-update/.

2. “Stop & Shop Final Offer - UFCW Local 371.” Stop & Shop Stores, 28 Mar. 2019.

Today's "Raw Thoughts": My Take On John Oliver

For years, commentators have seen fit to criticize the "universe" of pro wrestling.  In the 1980s, the industry was blasted on "The Morton Downey Jr. Show" (though not by the host; he enjoyed wrestling events).  The 90s saw Phil Mushnick (a writer for the "New York Post") take pot shots at both WWE and WCW.  Then, in the 2000s, a group called the "Parents Television Council" sought to remove pro wrestling from TV altogether (what's worse, they ALMOST succeeded). 

As such, the comments of one John Oliver are not exactly "breaking news".  If you haven't heard, Mr. Oliver has taken it upon himself to call out the WWE.  On his HBO show "Last Week Tonight", the commentator advanced what I call "the Bob Costas argument".  Let me explain this in detail. 

Like Mr. Costas, Oliver contends that the men and women of wrestling are forced to take dangerous risks, and that this should not be permitted.  The commentator is clearly misinformed regarding this issue.  It is true that wrestlers risk severe injury from the moves that they perform.  However, these are calculated risks (as opposed to non-sensible risks), and performed of the wrestler's own free will.  Nobody (Vince McMahon included) is physically forcing the stars of WWE to "get in the ring"; they do it because they want to. 

This being the case, I wonder who Mr. Oliver (or anyone, for that matter) is to make individual choices for others? If certain people were incapable of making decisions for themselves, then I might understand his point of view.  However, realizing that most wrestlers can and do make their own choices, those decisions aren't Oliver's call.

The other part of the debate centers on certain actions and attitudes expressed on wrestling programming.  In the past, WWE has (to some extent) objectified women, as well as had a perceived bias against African-Americans and Hispanics (see Chavo Guerrero Jr.'s "Kerwin White" storyline).  Some observers (myself included) see this as objectionable behavior, or at least events that young children should not see.  Nevertheless, the question of what a child is permitted (or not permitted) to watch is best handled by that child's parents.  Again, who is Mr. Oliver to decide this?

Now, let's compare "Monday Night Raw" to some other popular television programs.  Most of the time, there's a difference between what happens on the show and "real life".  The longtime fan (such as myself) realizes that there is a scripted aspect to wrestling programming.  By that, I mean that the individual men and women of the business portray different characters.  Some of these characters are likeable; others are not.  Some characters say and do outrageously unacceptable things; others take the so-called "high road".  This is no different from most other television shows (for example, HBO's own "Game of Thrones", or NBC's "The Blacklist").  And quite frankly, if you are of the opinion that pro wrestling is completely "real", then much like a non-used mid-carder, I "have nothing for you". 

Knowing this, let me quote Vince McMahon in saying that pro wrestling isn't everyone's "cup of tea".  However, nobody is holding you at gunpoint, and forcing you to watch WWE events.  If you don't like the current product or show, you have the right to switch stations, or even turn the whole TV off.  Nevertheless, there are many people who get a great deal of enjoyment out of watching others get smacked around.  I believe that it is inappropriate for Mr. Oliver (who might best be described as a man who thinks he's "holier-than-thou") to tell such people what they can and cannot watch.  There is, indeed, some content that could be deemed "offensive" to certain viewers.  To this, I can only say that "viewer discretion is advised". 

A "Visionary" Idea (AKA "A Matty B Production")

A couple of days ago, I found myself watching one of the older episodes of "The Twilight Zone".  This particular feature was "The Obsolete Man"; a horrifying vision of what the future could look like.  Allow me to briefly describe what takes place in this tale. 

As the story begins, we see a man entering what seems to be a large hall or chamber.  Series creator and narrator Rod Serling intones,

"You walk into this room at your own risk, because it leads to the future, not a future that will be, but one that might be.  This is not a new world; it is simply an extension of what began in the old one.  It has patterned itself after every dictator who has ever planted the ripping imprint of a boot on the pages of history since the beginning of time.  It has refinements, technological advances, and a more sophisticated approach to the destruction of human freedom.  But like every one of the super-states that preceded it, it has one iron rule: logic is an enemy and truth is a menace.  

This is Mr. Romney Wordsworth, in his last forty-eight hours on Earth. He's a citizen of the State, but will soon have to be eliminated, because he's built out of flesh and because he has a mind. Mr. Romney Wordsworth, who will draw his last breaths in 'The Twilight Zone".   

"Mr. Wordsworth" has been accused by "the State" of being "obsolete"; that is, having no purpose or meaning to his existence.  Our protagonist testifies that he is a librarian; this does not sit well with his judge, an imposing figure called "the Chancellor".  We learn that "the State" has eliminated books; as such, librarians are regarded as not being needed.  As Wordsworth continues to testify, we find out that he believes in God.  Again, "the Chancellor" disapproves of this, as "the State" has "proven" that "there is no God".  

Subsequently, "Mr. Wordsworth" is convicted of being obsolete, and sentenced to death.  As is the apparent custom, our protagonist is allowed to choose how he will be executed, and at what time of day.  Wordsworth prefers to die at the hands of a personal assassin; this person will be the only one that knows of the exact manner of Wordsworth's death.  "The Chancellor" agrees to this stipulation, along with one other small request; that the execution of the now-condemned Wordsworth be nationally televised.  In the interest of not spoiling the ending, I will leave the remaining part of the story incomplete.  

The plot of this story has become embedded in my subconscious, and inspired me to creativity.  I find this to be something that is, perhaps, worth showing to today's audiences.  As such, I am considering modernizing the script somewhat, and showing it as a short film (perhaps on community television, or other such outlets)

When I speak of "modernizing the script", I mean that I would like to tinker with a few details, but keep the basic arc of the story.  For example, I might make the first name of "Mr. Wordsworth" to be "Ron" instead of "Romney".  I may also change Wordsworth's occupation to that of a "writer and humorist" (one that, nevertheless, expresses what he believes to be basic truths).  These actions would be taken with the intent of bringing the story up to date, and keeping it relevant for a modern audience. 

As explained previously, I believe that "The Obsolete Man" teaches us a lesson that is still very important.  In the words of Rod Serling, "any state, any entity, any ideology which fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man...that state is obsolete".  It is this tale of morality, and its teachings, that I hope to present to local viewers.  

Is the general public ready to witness "my epic vision"? Brace yourself, because a "Matty B Production" may be coming your way soon!

A Genealogy Update

Several months ago, I wrote this as one of my early entries for this, your favorite blog.  The article partially dealt with the history of my family, and my curiosity as to whether I might be related to professional wrestling royalty.  I am happy to report that I have an update regarding this matter. 

As I explained in the particular blog post,

"A few months back, I was doing some research concerning my family tree, and relatives (I was able to trace my parents back through multiple generations).  In the course of my exploration of this topic, I happened upon a relation (on my father's side of the family) that is linked to a family of McMahons...realizing this, I have started to wonder whether I could be at least distantly related to the McMahon wrestling dynasty".  

Tonight, I happened to be randomly pondering events in the "universe" of pro wrestling.  As a result of my deliberations, I began to research the origins of the current product.  I have unearthed some apparent facts that should prove to be VERY interesting.  Allow me, if you will, to clarify these issues.  

In summary:

• My last name is Boland; the family name is descended from the O'Bolands of County Clare, Ireland.  
• The name O'Boland evolved from the name "Boru", as in Brian Boru, an ancient High King of Ireland.  
• Brian Boru is a common ancestor of the Boland and McMahon families.  
• Two different Irish McMahon families exist; one that traces its roots to Clare (the "Thormond" McMahons), and another that has its ancestry in County Monaghan (the "Airgialla" McMahons).  
• The former group of McMahons are not related to the Monaghan-based McMahons(1)(2).  

Now, here's where things get even MORE interesting.  To wit:

• The McMahon wrestling family can be traced back to Roderick McMahon (1848-1922), a hotel owner and immigrant from County Galway.  
• Roderick and wife Elizabeth McMahon (1846-1936) produced four children, including Roderick James "Jess" McMahon.  It is this McMahon who (with others) founded the "Capital Wrestling Corporation", a forerunner to today's World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE).    
• Jess and wife Rose E. (Davis) McMahon (1891-1997) had three children, including Vincent J. McMahon (1914-1984).   
• Vincent J. was the father of Vincent Kennedy McMahon (today's Vince McMahon)(1)(2)(3)(4). 

OK, follow me so far? To further clarify this, we must delve into a bit of Irish history, and geography.  

• Galway is part of the Province of Connacht.  
• Clare is part of a different territory, the Province of Munster.  Nevertheless;
• Clare itself was once part of Connacht; in the tenth century, internal strife in Connacht caused Clare to be annexed to Munster (in a previous incarnation as the "Kingdom of Munster").  
• Upon its annexation, Clare was (for the time) renamed as Thomond(2).  

As I previously pointed out,

"According to my Aunt Eileen, my father's side of the family definitely has relatives with (the name of McMahon)".  

Let's break this down for a moment.  My research shows that the wrestling McMahons are descended from the Thomond-based (read: Clare-based) line.  This is the part of the family that can be traced back to Brian Boru, which I am ninety-nine point five percent certain is ALSO MY ANCESTOR (1).  As such, it is at least reasonable to suggest that I am indeed related to the McMahons of pro wrestling.  

(takes the above in for a moment)

Of course, this is an "oh my God" moment for me (thank you Joey Styles), as I have followed pro wrestling with interest seemingly all of my life.  

Now, might I be incorrect in my reasoning and assumptions? Perhaps there is something I haven't considered that proves my theory wrong? Clearly, the answer to this question is yes.  However, and "in any event" (thanks Vince), I believe that the evidence before me is astounding, to say the least.  

I'm going to keep my eye on this; I will attempt to confirm the above information through the Gaelic-American Club of Fairfield, CT.  The organization is a great resource for those who wish to learn about the Irish, or even just gulp down a "pint" or two.  

Anyways, that's "all the news that's fit to print" from the desk of Matty B.  Further updates on this matter will be forthcoming.  

"Until next time....if there IS a next time"  - Don Pardo, former announcer for WNBC-TV

1.  Personal knowledge.  

2.  Various online sources.  

3.  "WWE: Superstars > Hall Of Fame > Vince Mcmahon > Bio". WWE.Com, 2017, http://www.wwe.com/superstars/halloffame/vincemcmahon/bio/.  Accessed 2 Apr 2019.

4.  Irish Examiner. "The Fighting Irish And The WWE". 2013, http://irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/features/the-fighting-irish-and-the-wwe-243608.html. Accessed 2 Apr 2019.