As a deadline looms, Southern California's major supermarket chains and the grocery workers' union say they remain far apart on key issues and a strike vote could be in the offing.

The United Food and Commercial Workers union has set Thursday as the deadline to come up with a contract it could recommend to its members. Despite previous optimism that a deal was close, both the union and the grocery chains – Albertsons, Ralphs and Vons – say little progress has been made in the past week on such issues as health care benefits and wage increases.

If the supermarkets don't come up with an acceptable contract, the union says, starting Sunday it will have members vote on whatever proposals are on the table and also on whether to authorize a strike against Ralphs and Vons. Union members at Albertsons voted in March to authorize a strike against that chain.

A strike would not happen immediately because either side must give 72 hours notice before canceling the current contract and starting a strike or a lockout. Negotiations could continue as long as a strike or a lockout doesn't happen.

The contract involves some 65,000 workers, and the three chains account for more than 50 percent of the grocery business in Southern California.

Mickey Kasparian, head of UFCW Local 135 in San Diego and Imperial counties, said the supermarket chains seem to want to repeat the debacle of 3 ½ years years ago when negotiations broke down, resulting in a bitter 141-day strike and lockout.

“I find it amazing that they are going down that same road of destruction,” he said.

Adena Tessler, a spokeswoman for the three chains, said the companies acknowledge that little progress has been made.

“We are feeling it is less likely we will have a complete plan by the June 21 deadline,” she said.

A key sticking point is how much of a jointly operated fund should be used to help pay for the rising cost of health care benefits. The fund currently has about $500 million, and the union is willing to use about half of the reserves, Kasparian said. The chains want to use a higher portion of the fund, as much as $350 million.

If too much is taken out, Kasparian said, the fund could face insolvency by the third year, meaning workers would have to pay higher premiums or have their benefits reduced.

Tessler said the supermarkets are confident the amount of money they want to use from the fund will not bankrupt it and called the issue “a difference between actuarial experts.”

The sides are also at loggerheads about wage increases for new hires. One of the union's chief goals during the contract negotiations was to get rid of a two-tier system in which those hired after the strike were paid less and had to wait longer to qualify for benefits.

Union officials said the supermarkets' latest wage proposal would effectively create a three-tier system in which those hired under the new contract would take longer to reach the top wage scale.

If the supermarkets' proposal were put it place, the union said, it would take 13,000 hours, or as long as 11 years, for someone hired under the new contract to earn the highest possible wage. For those hired before the last strike, it took two years and for those hired after the strike, it would take 7,800 hours, or as long as six years, to make the top wage.

Tessler acknowledged that it would take new hires longer to get wage increases but pointed out that new hires now have the possibility of eventually making the same wages as those hired before the strike – something that is not possible in the current contract.

Kasparian said there is still time to reach an agreement on a new contract but that the union won't just accept any proposal.

“We are not going to put our members' health benefits at risk and we are not going to create a third tier just to get a deal,” he said.