Unions rally, corporations worry: How Kamala Harris’ campaign has divided the grocery industry

In the whirlwind first few weeks of Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign, there’s been no shortage of headline-grabbing moments — from coconut memes that have lit up social media to the popular consensus that “Kamala is brat” (and that’s a good thing). Yet, beyond the internet fodder, the current vice president has managed to ignite a serious debate that could reshape a key segment of the American economy: the grocery industry. 

Grocery unions, long-standing champions of fair wages and working conditions, are rallying behind her with a fervor not seen since the Obama years. But it’s not all applause. The leaders of several large-scale retailers and some corporate grocers are pushing back against Harris’ blunt characterization of their pricing strategies as “greedflation,” claiming her remarks are either unfair or unfounded. 

The result is a unique political divide between supermarket workers and their corporate bosses, all in the shadow of the ongoing national legal debate over whether two of the largest supermarket chains in the country, Kroger and Albertsons, should be able to merge their operations. 

On July 21, President Joe Biden announced his withdrawal from the 2024 United States presidential election and endorsed Harris as his replacement. The next day, the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) — which represents 1.2 million essential workers in the grocery, meatpacking, food processing and retail industries — announced “its unanimous endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris for president.” 

In an accompanying statement, UFCW International President Marc Perrone said Harris has always shown up for the union’s members, whether during her time representing California in the U.S. Sentate or “as part of the most pro-union administration in modern American history.” 

“For years, Vice President Harris has shown a real willingness to listen to our members and working people everywhere about the issues that matter most to them,” Perrone wrote. “As a U.S. Senator, she was a vocal supporter for essential worker protections during the pandemic. During her tenure as Vice President, she was critical in the fight to lower prescription drugs and cast the tie-breaking vote to pass the Emergency Pension Plan Relief Act of 2021, safeguarding the retirements of over 350,000 union workers.” 

He continued: “Working families deserve a presidential candidate that will put them first and the only candidate in this race who will do that is Vice President Harris. We look forward to working with our members across the country to elect her as our next president.” 

As Salon has previously reported, one relatively recent and tangible example of Harris’ support of grocery unions is how she advocated for the continuation of “hazard pay” for grocery workers during the pandemic. Along with Perrone, Harris wrote an Aug. 2020 commentary for CNN simply titled: “Why grocery store workers deserve hazard pay.” 

“Our country is hurting. People are losing their jobs, parents are struggling to keep a roof over their kids’ heads and Americans are getting sick and dying in record numbers,” they wrote. “The pain and suffering is often too much to bear. As this crisis continues, we must remember all of the frontline workers who are continuing to put themselves in harm’s way to help others make it through these challenging times. 

“While top grocery chains rake in billions in profits during this pandemic, these frontline workers cannot choose to work from home like the corporate executives of these companies do,” the letter continued. “The responsibility to properly protect and support store workers lies with these executives, who must make the decision to consistently pay workers a wage that justly compensates them for the clear and present dangers of their jobs during the pandemic.” 

Yet while many grocery workers (or at least their union representatives) are for Harris, the owners of the stores where they work have expressed more complex feelings about the current Harris campaign, specifically her promise to pass the first-ever federal ban on price gouging. 

“We all know that prices went up during the pandemic when the supply chains shut down and failed, but our supply chains have now improved and prices are still too high,” Harris said in an Aug. 16 speech. “ Many of the big food companies are seeing their highest profits in two decades, and while many grocery chains pass along these savings, others still aren’t.” 

Harris said during the speech that, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the cost of groceries have gone up by 25% between 2019 and 2023, faster than other consumer goods and services. In her coverage of the speech, Salon’s Joy Saha noted the vice president is looking to target businesses that are illegally hiking up prices and not “playing by the rules.” 

However, following the speech, the National Grocers Association (NGA) characterized Harris’ “proposal for a ban on grocery price gouging [as] a solution in search of a problem.” 

“Our independent grocers, already operating on extremely thin margins, are hurting from the same inflationary pressure points as their customers,” NGA president and CEO Greg Ferrara said. “Labor, rent, swipe fees, utilities; you name it, the price has increased. But what’s really hurting our local, independent grocers, is the lack of fair competition with big box retailers, who leverage their influence in ways that your independent grocer down the street can’t, leading to increased prices for everyone else.” 

Ferrara wrote that the NGA hopes both the current and next presidential administration will look closely at anticompetitive behaviors, including price discrimination, that are increasing prices for independent grocers and the community members they serve. 

“If Washington is serious about helping lower prices for consumers, it can help in three important ways: lower skyrocketing swipe fees, rein in excessive and burdensome regulations, and enforce antitrust laws like the Robinson-Patman Act that enhance price competition amongst retailers, regardless of size or location,” Ferrara concluded. 

Leslie G. Sarasin, the president and CEO of FMI, The Food Industry Association, formerly the Food Marketing Institute, also released a statement in response to Harris’ speech. “It is both inaccurate and irresponsible to conflate an illegal activity like price gouging — a defined legal term in which specific violations of trade practices law occur — with inflation, which is a broad, macroeconomic measure of increases in consumer prices over time,” Sarasin said. 

However, according to a recent report from Politico, while Harris’ grocery gouging proposal has quickly become a flashpoint in her presidential campaign (and has since been labeled as “communist price controls” by critics like Donald Trump) some Democratic lawmakers are allegedly quietly reassuring worried allies: The proposal is more of a political statement than a legislative reality. 

Politico’s Meredith Lee Hill and Adam Cancyrn spoke to six Democratic lawmakers and five Democratic aides who were granted anonymity to discuss the matter candidly. Many told the reporters Harris’ proposal is unlikely to pass Congress, even if Democrats gain control of both the White House and Capitol Hill. 

“Rather, they’ve argued it’s a messaging tactic — a way to show that she understands food prices remain an economic burden for many Americans and to redirect voters’ anger about inflation to corporations, in a way that progressives in particular have cheered,” they wrote. 

As nearly 90% of Americans report feeling “very” or “somewhat” concerned about the cost of food, grocery prices will likely remain a defining issue of the upcoming election. In the coming weeks, how Harris balances her appeal to unionized grocery workers while also quelling the concerns of industry leaders may offer insight into her broader economic approach — and the challenges of maintaining populist momentum in a deeply polarized political landscape.