Jia Lissa
In the sprawling jurisdiction of the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 8-Golden State, a 23,000-member powerhouse spanning from Bakersfield to the Oregon border, the air is thick with allegations of intimidation and systemic suppression. For nearly four decades, the local has been under the singular control of one family. Now, a grassroots movement seeking to restore competitive elections is reporting a pattern of behavior they characterize as "outrageous and illegal," alleging that union officials are using stalking tactics to sabotage their campaign before the ballot is even finalized.
At the heart of the conflict is Eric Marcuz, a veteran Safeway employee and presidential candidate for the "At What Cost" reform slate. Marcuz and his fellow reformers are attempting to achieve what has been impossible in this local since 1984: a contested election. To secure a spot on the ballot, the slate must collect 443 valid petition signatures—a threshold of 2 percent of the membership—within a grueling two-week window. Failure to meet this requirement would effectively cancel the election, leaving the incumbent administration unchallenged by default.
A Pattern of Alleged Surveillance
The confrontation reached a breaking point on Monday, when Marcuz traveled to the union’s Roseville headquarters to collect the necessary blank petitions. What followed was a 300-mile odyssey that has since become the subject of a formal police report.
According to Marcuz, as soon as he departed the union office, he noticed a black Dodge Ram pickup trailing him. As he maneuvered through traffic and eventually merged onto the freeway, the truck remained locked in his wake. After hours of driving, Marcuz stopped for fuel, at which point he confronted the driver: Jeff Berns, a staff representative for Local 8-GS.
The encounter was deeply unsettling, according to accounts provided by the reform slate. Jeff Berns is not merely a staffer; he is the brother of Mark Berns, the union’s designated election chair—the very official responsible for the integrity of the upcoming vote. When questioned about his presence, Marcuz claims that Jeff Berns openly admitted to following him, stating he was there to ensure members received "accurate information" regarding the supposed risks of the "At What Cost" slate.
When Marcuz asked if he intended to follow him all the way to his home in Redding, hours to the north, Berns reportedly indicated he had been spending a significant amount of time in the Redding area recently. For Marcuz, the implication was clear: the union apparatus was not just monitoring his public movements, but keeping tabs on his private life.
Chronology of an Intimidation Campaign
The harassment did not cease with the initial confrontation. Over the next seven hours, the reform candidates were subjected to a persistent and systematic effort to disrupt their organizing efforts:
- The Freeway Tail: Marcuz reported being tailed for 300 miles, through every highway exit, gas station, and U-turn.
- The Store Confrontation: Upon arriving at a Save Mart in Fresno to solicit signatures, Marcuz and teammate Mike Romero were met by three union representatives, including Jeff Berns and longtime vice president John Micheletti. The reps allegedly hovered over every interaction the candidates attempted with rank-and-file members.
- Active Interference: One longtime acquaintance of Romero reportedly fled the store the moment a union representative interjected in their conversation, effectively chilling the candidate’s ability to gather support.
- The Modesto Standoff: After Marcuz departed the Fresno store, he was followed 90 miles to Modesto. When he stopped at a supporter’s home for dinner, the union reps remained parked outside for an hour, serving as a constant, looming presence.
By the time the ordeal ended, Marcuz estimates he had been under surveillance for seven hours. Fearing for his safety and the integrity of the process, he filed a formal report with the Roseville Police Department, citing stalking and harassment.
Historical Context: A Dynasty Without Dissent
To understand the severity of these allegations, one must look at the history of the Loveall administration. Jacques Loveall, the incumbent president, assumed leadership in 2004, stepping into the role vacated by his father, Jack Loveall, who had presided over the local since 1984.
The elder Loveall’s tenure was defined by extreme wealth and a lack of competitive opposition. Reports from the Contra Costa Times during that era detailed a lifestyle far removed from the average grocery worker, including a $28,000 annual country club membership and the use of a private jet with two full-time pilots on the union payroll.
The current reform movement is not the first to challenge this power structure, nor are the intimidation tactics new. In 1997, reform candidate Jack Nordby attempted to challenge the elder Loveall. Nordby later alleged that his supporters were coerced into rescinding their signatures, a tactic that successfully kept him off the ballot. Reports from the time indicate that as many as 150 signatures were invalidated in that cycle. Nordby even claimed to have been chased by a vehicle while driving his family to church—an eerie echo of the experiences reported by Marcuz and Romero decades later.
Furthermore, in 1994, a member named Michael Ross-Smith, who led an opposition campaign against a merger, was rear-ended in Walnut Creek by union business agents who had been following him in a union-leased vehicle. A police collision report confirmed the incident, highlighting a long-standing pattern of using company assets to monitor and intimidate internal critics.
The Legal and Ethical Implications
The "At What Cost" slate argues that the union’s actions violate both the spirit of trade unionism and the letter of the law. Under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), specifically Section 610, it is illegal to use force, violence, or threats to coerce or intimidate union members from exercising their rights to nominate candidates or vote. Furthermore, Section 401(e) explicitly forbids "improper interference" in the rights of members to participate in union elections.
While union staff members have claimed they were on "vacation" during the surveillance, the reform candidates argue that the presence of high-ranking officials and their active interference within store premises constitutes a violation of both labor law and union bylaws.
"It makes me think of everyone that has known there’s been a need for change in the past, and has been scared away from pursuing it," Marcuz said. "This might work. They might intimidate and scare enough people out of participating."
Official Silence and Future Outlook
Despite the gravity of the allegations, UFCW Local 8-GS has remained silent. Requests for comment sent to the union leadership regarding the surveillance, the alleged interference in petition gathering, and the history of intimidation have gone unanswered.
For the members of Local 8-GS, the stakes could not be higher. With petition signatures due by November 17 and ballots scheduled to be mailed shortly thereafter on November 21, the window for reform is rapidly closing. The "At What Cost" slate faces a dual battle: they must hit their signature quota while navigating an environment where every conversation with a potential supporter risks being monitored by union officials.
The events of this past week have cast a long shadow over the upcoming election. Whether or not the membership chooses to support the reform slate, the fact remains that the path to a democratic vote is currently being obstructed by the very people tasked with representing the workers’ interests. As the investigation into the stalking allegations proceeds, the labor movement at large is watching to see if the cycle of dynastic control will finally be broken, or if the culture of fear that has persisted for 40 years will once again prevail.
Asro
Reynand Wu
