Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
Retribution Against the Financial Elite!

Workers and Occupy Wall Street Fight Shop Closure; 24-Hour Picket and Occupation of Hot and Crusty Bakery Begins

Posted 1 year ago on Sept. 1, 2012, 12:27 p.m. EST by OccupyWallSt
Tags: labor, 99 pickets, solidarity, occupy hot and crusty, nyc, direct action

Picket in front of Hot & Crusty with "Another City Is Possible" Banner draped over the awning

Press release from the Laundry Workers Center via 99pickets. Today is the second day of the action; yesterday, five people were arrested during the occupation, but the picket continues 24/7 outside! If you're in New York, join them now at 63rd & 2nd Ave. Celebrate Labor Day weekend by taking collective action for economic justice! Check Twitter hashtags for live updates: #OccupyHotnCrusty #99PKTS

Workers Allege Retaliatory Store Closure is an Employer Tactic to Break Recently Formed Union, the Hot and Crusty Workers Association

New York, NY, August 31 – Following news of an impending store closure, workers at the 63rd street location of Hot and Crusty bakery have called for a 24-hour picket and store occupation, alleging the company has deliberately withheld rent payments following a hard-fought and successful unionization drive in May 2012. The company, owned by private equity partner Mark Samson, gave the Hot and Crusty Workers Association 11 days notice of eviction from the property, informing employees that August 31st would be their last day.

The union, led by grassroots labor organization Laundry Workers Center and a contingent from Occupy Wall Street, students, faith and community members are occupying the workplace and holding an around-the-clock picket demanding the company discontinue its union-busting tactics, pay its rent immediately, and continue to negotiate a fair contract with its workers. The company has used several bait-and-switch tactics during negotiations, threatening workers’ immigration status to deter their commitment to continuing the fight.

The August 31 closure will mean the loss of 23 jobs – including those of employees with as many as twelve years of employment with the company. Workers allege owners, including Mark Samson, Evangelos Gavalas and Nick Glendis, have a demonstrated history of wage and hour violations, intimidation, retaliation and harassment of workers in several of their businesses, as well as a pattern of closing down shops and opening under different aliases to avoid legal and economic liability. Workers have filed charges at the National Labor Relations Board alleging that the company is closing the 63rd street shop to intimidate workers organizing at other Hot and Crusty locations.

The union, led by grassroots labor organization Laundry Workers Center and a contingent from Occupy Wall Street, students, faith and community members are occupying the workplace and holding an around-the-clock picket demanding the company discontinue its union-busting tactics, pay its rent immediately, and continue to negotiate a fair contract with its workers. The company has used several bait-and-switch tactics during negotiations, threatening workers’ immigration status to deter their commitment to continuing the fight.

Mahoma Lopez, a leader in the campaign who has worked at Hot and Crusty for over 7 years said “I want to send a message that we have to change the way immigrants are treated in this country. We have to show the bosses that we can’t be treated like animals any longer. We need to take radical action like people did in the civil rights movement, so that our voices can be heard. We are so happy to have the community here with us.”

Diego Ibanez, a member of Occupy Wall Street, emphasized the connection between Wall Street and workers, saying, “We’re sending a clear message to greedy bosses that we are watching and will not allow our people in he community to be oppressed any longer.”

Laundry Workers Banner inside Hot N Crusty
Photo from the occupation inside yesterday

Night-time projection on the building reading "Trabajadoras Unidas Jamas Sera Vencidas" (Workers United Will Never Be Defeated) and "Union Busting Is Disgusting"
@illuminator99 supporting the occupation with a night-time light display

banner at the occupation: Job Defenders

113 Comments

113 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by mserfas (652) from Ashland, PA 1 year ago

For those of us who don't know anything about this, can you provide background on the larger issues involved? According to http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/host-marriott-services-adds-hot-and-crusty-bakery-cafe-to-its-national-portfolio-of-brands-73542167.html Hot and Crusty has ten locations in Manhattan "at Penn Station, Grand Central Station and numerous other locations throughout the Upper East and West Sides", a central bakery, a cafe at the new International Arrivals Terminal 4 at JFK, and plans two other airport locations. From this case, and a 1998 New York Times story about Riese ( http://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/16/nyregion/a-drive-to-unionize-fast-food-workers.html ) it sounds like each individual location has to decide whether to have a "union" on its own, which is just absurd, and would certainly explain why fast food workers don't get paid fairly.

[-] 2 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

This is Occupy Wall Street at its best.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Vote out anti Union politicians, And Protest, pressure, & agitate for progressive change.

[-] 0 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

I think experience is showing us that Obama is anti union. I still believe that to the extent that the election is a plebiscite on whether racists can kick out the first non white president based on mobilizing bigots and using the most egregious falsehoods I have to hold my nose and cast the only ballot against the bigots that is going to count. (If indeed it even gets counted).

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

If you are pro union & you think Pres Obama is anti union then you should not vote for him.

Perhaps Green party candidate Jill Stein would suit you better. I saw her down at bowling green a few hours ago and she sounds great. She is pro union and great on many other issues.

If you're in nyc don't worry about the bigot trying to get rid of Pres Obama. Ny will go for Obama nothing will change that.

Good luck

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

I am in NYC and I am going to vote for Obama while holding my nose. I don't believe that any election is going to bring about the kind of changes that are necessary. Only a revolution can do that. That's why I have looked to OWS as a step in the revolutionary direction and my hopes are with OWS or whatever might come next out of OWS. I want to see a demoralizing repudiation of Romney and the Party of legitimate rape not only in the electoral college but in the popular vote. Of course if history is any guide the GOP has itself well embedded in the vote counting side of things and we know what Stalin once said about that. I hope if they do once again steal the elction that a popular uprising follows suit. I would hope but not expect that Obama would be the one to call the 47 percenters and all decent people out into the streets in such a case.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I agree. An uprising would be the only way to undo another election theft.

Let's hope it ain't necessary and we can avoid all violence as we create the change we need.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

For all of you in the streets today.

Takin' It To The Streets

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Unions and collective bargaining are the key to restoring our share of the wealth. Since 1970 wages have gone up, but inflation has stolen any gains for the lower 90% of workers. Productivity increased 80%, but we have not received any of that increase. It's all gone to the top 10%.

Because inflation blurs our perception of what a fair wage is, employers have taken advantage of us, and reap the rewards that rightly belong to us. The minimum wage adjusted for inflation was over $10 an hour in 1968. Now it's just $7.25 an hour.

Every day that goes by, our wages buy less and less. Just to keep up with inflation, wages need to rise by at least 3% a year. That isn't even a raise, it's just to stay even.

So support unions, bargain for a higher salary, ask for a cost of living raise, and above all don't let those companies take advantage of you any longer!

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Do you think that union dues should be allowed to be used to fund certain politician's campaigns?

Im pro union, but Im for money out of politics too.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Completely agree. Union dues don't belong in politics, period.

I came across another post that caused me to take a hard look look at inflation. It really took off in the 70's and hasn't stopped since. It occurred to me that when inflation is high, it becomes more difficult to tell if you are paying a fair price for an item or are getting paid a fair wage.

So inflation acts like a cloaking device for economic tyranny. Those who understand it flourish at the expense of those who don't.

Couple inflation, declining union membership, an apathetic populace, and it becomes a recipe for the greatest fleecing of the American people since the depression.

[-] 0 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Union members expect their elected leaders to do what they acn to advance the interests of the membership. If that involves helping union friendlier politicians, then that's what it involves. Personally I think it probably could be better spent but then again no one elected me to represent any union lately.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

A union is not a person. A corporation is not a person. A political party is not a person. What right do they have to take part in Democracy? A government by the people.

It was never meant to be a government by groups.

[-] 0 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 1 year ago

So, then the workers should unilaterally disarm? In the US today workers have only two things worth anything to them: Unions and Occupy.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

I completely support unions fighting for higher worker wages, better safety, Etc. But they should have no more say influencing Congress than General Motors or a Super Pac.

We each have one vote, joining a union shouldn't give us one more.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 1 year ago

What you are saying to my understanding is that you support unions but you think organized workers should not contest the corporations (organized one percenters) in the political arena. I think certainly as long as money does rule politics and as long as politics actually matters to workers (which it does) then worlkers through their organizations should have the same right to be in politics as capitalists do through their organizations.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

If the capitalists are able to subvert democracy, then the workers should be able subvert democracy too! Two wrongs don't make it right.

No, don't allow subversion by either. Take money out of politics.

[-] 0 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 1 year ago

The workers have every right to defend themselves in the realm of politics. If you go to a knifenfight empty handed you'll get carried out, which is what is happeninng to the workers right now.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Exactly. Decent people don't join in on a knife fight between two street gangs to decide who is going to rule their turf.

Decent people kick the gang members out and civilly decide among themselves who will rule.

[-] 0 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 1 year ago

The fight is not going to go away. It's about food shelter, clothing at the level of the bakery workers. It's not a game and not a theoretical exercise in civility. It's war. The enemy is not going to go away. Gotta fight them. The only argument is how.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Both the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's and the unions of the 20's and 30's managed to win their wars without bribing politicians. The unions should use similar tactics they used 80 years ago. Boycotts, strikes, and collective bargaining.

If they resort to the same type of tactics that corporate lobbyists and super pacs use, it just shows how corrupt they have become and how important it is to remove their leadership.

[-] 0 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 1 year ago

I agree with the first paragraph. As for the second paragraph I personally would not be spending Union money on elections, I'd be spending it on organizing - perhaps in a new mode, not the NLRB one which I happen to think is all used up. However the union leaders are responsible to their members to try their best to advance the interests of the members and this seems to be how they believe it should be done. The disagreement you and I seem to have is whether they have a right to fight the same way their enemies fight. I say yes, they do.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I say as it is right now, yes they do. But we need ALL money removed. No union group has the right to buy off politicians at the detriment of other good, hard working people without those connections.

Remove ALL money. And ifyou believe in voting, then certainly dont vote for those that take corporate donations.

[-] -1 points by Uneasy (19) 1 year ago

Confiscating union dues from workers against their will and then throwing it towards a political party should be illegal.

Workers don't have a helluva lot of say in that and it needs to be stopped cold. It's coercion. It's not the union's money in the first place. The worker earns it and it shouldn't be confiscated against their will.

F**K unions and their little power games.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

I think you mean f--k union management and their little power games? Honest unions are the key to getting fair wages and the economy back on it's feet.

[-] 2 points by Uneasy (19) 1 year ago

LOL - let me know when you find an honest yoonyen.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

They're standing next to the honest politicians.

[-] 0 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 1 year ago

No one is forced to join a union. No one has to seek employment in a union shop or stay there if a union is voted in. Just the same no one is forced to hold shares in a company whose practices or philosophy he doesn't agree with. When a business opens in a certain areas or on certain streets that business is forced to pay into a fund that is supposed to advance the interests of the businesses it represents. Anyone who doesn't like it is free not to open a business in given Business Improvement District or move away and find a new location. This is the freedom we do have in our society.

[-] 2 points by Uneasy (19) 1 year ago

Yes! The freedom to let all the union shop go and move overseas.

You wanted it, you got it.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

You are partially correct which makes you partially incorrect.

Fuck the union bosses and admin for raping their members for money. Dues should be next to nothing.

Why(?) some might ask.

Bluntly - the power of the unions is the power of their members - to address issues - not to buy - support - but to vote for support.

This reorganization of priorities will need to be addressed by the union members - and will go so much better when money is removed from politics - ENTIRELY.

[-] 0 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 1 year ago

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Yup, you hit the nail on head with the last sentence. Inflation is the great theft that no one talks about. Forces you into Wallst in order to grow your money, because a dollar saved today (Im 32) isnt worth shit in 40 yrs.

[-] 0 points by socialmedic (178) 1 year ago

So long as corporate America isn't paying enough tax or wages and has a vote as if it were a person ... and you worry about Unions having a vote? ... Unions should vote.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 1 year ago

No organizations should have a vote, only people.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Take away their ability to lobby and the taxes and wages will go to where they should be.

[-] -1 points by TheRoot (94) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Go right to the heart of it all. Restore sound money because it not only protect labor but everyone else too.

http://www.fame.org/labor.html

[-] -3 points by vitvitvit (5) 1 year ago

Why do your wages buy less and less? Inflation.

Why do we have inflation? Look no further than the policies of the current administration, specifically spending money like it grows on trees. Printing money isn't free and it hurts the poor the most.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26731) 1 year ago

Strange to know that we've only ever had inflation for 4 years now.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Huh - you know(?) - I believe that you are correct sir. It is strange - I mean I think I grew up knowing that term very well. Is this an effect of revisionist history and the schools?

[-] -1 points by vitvitvit (5) 1 year ago

Strange to know that OWS is really complaining about it now.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Why not provide some real evidence instead of hot air?

[-] 1 points by vitvitvit (5) 1 year ago

Hey dipschit, I'm quoting YOU.

"Every day that goes by, our wages buy less and less."

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Here is the evidence of 40 years of constant inflation under every administration, Dem and Rep.

http://visualizingeconomics.com/2008/05/18/inflation-in-the-untied-states-1774-2007/#.UEKGqKA4KpT

[-] 2 points by shooz (26731) 1 year ago

Seems to me, they've been tying to point out that WallStreet creates all that inflation. They always did.

[-] 1 points by vitvitvit (5) 1 year ago

Wall Street doesn't print money. the government does. The government causes inflation and all the blame shifting you want to try because of your love of government (which can do no wrong) is crap... and you know it. Lie to other people, but don't lie to yourself.

"By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens." - John Maynard Keynes.

[-] 2 points by vitriolck (69) 1 year ago

Hmm. You haven't read the essay that this quote is taken from in its entirety have you? Keynes is speaking against inflation in the context of post WWI Europe. Today in America, the Fed prints money at the behest of the private bankster cartel that controls it, so that they can trap the working and middle classes in debt peonage. But then, to libertarian idiots, bankers can do no wrong.

[-] 0 points by TheRoot (94) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Wall Street is a big part of the financial elite's system. Government is too. The central bank joins with the commercial banks in counterfeiting money. The Government made it all legal in 1913 and enjoys in the larceny.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Inflation has been steady for the last 40 years. As much as I dislike Obama, he can't be blamed, especially considering the deep recession he inherited.

http://visualizingeconomics.com/2008/05/18/inflation-in-the-untied-states-1774-2007/#.UEKE86A4KpS

[-] 1 points by vitvitvit (5) 1 year ago

By what measurement?

The CPI? Inflation Index? "Inflation"? "Core Inflation"?

No, no, of course inflation is steady. We just have to take out food and fuel from the equation, right?

Or HIDE the M3 money supply figures ??? Why was that done again?

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Take your pick of index, they are all going up, including M3 which was deleted in 2006, obviously to hide it's incredible rate of increase. You can't just blame it on the current administration, it's been happening for decades. I blame them all.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Vote out anti union politicians, And Protest, pressure, & agitate for progressive change.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Vote out anti union politicians, And Protest, pressure, & agitate for progressive change.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Vote out anti union politicians, And Protest, pressure, & agitate for progressive change.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Vote out anti Union politicians, And Protest, pressure, & agitate for progressive change.

[-] -1 points by robodan (-45) 1 year ago

vote out all pro union political goons. Unions is what created ows

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

The people created OWS!

Unions represent working Americans against criminal 1% plutocrat corps.

Support unions they ARE the American 99%!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Vote out anti union politicians, And Protest, pressure, & agitate for progressive change.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Vote out anti union politicians And Protest, pressure, & agitate for progressive change.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 1 year ago

I agree the united states is in need of change, but as I talk to the american people several each day , I find that many of them are still clueless. Up to half of them dont think there needs to be changes, so they would probably vote against it. We tried to vote for a change in corporations are not people, and the supreme court here in Utah, (a part of our government mind you) stated, we the people are not authorized to submit things to the election ballot. Wow, they definately forgot who they work for.

[-] 1 points by rickMoss (435) 1 year ago

This is the silly type of nonsense that will guarantee our failure. We are distracted by small trivial things because we don't know what to do.

The revolution has started! It's just waiting for you!

“Be Smart!” - FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM

U.S. Citizens Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( http://revolution2.osixs.org )

Non U.S. Citizens Read “Common Sense 3.2” at ( http://SaveTheWorldNow.osixs.org )

We don't have to live like this. Use your head not your might. Your brain is your most powerful muscle by far. learn to use it.

[-] 1 points by jk1234 (257) 1 year ago

Maybe the people who work there can offer as a solution a buy-out, and run it as partnership

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20544) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Signage:

Pic of hitler, with a circle ban symbol over top.

"We must reduce workers salaries and take away their right to strike"

  • ~ Hitler 1933

The following could be added to the ban bar in the circle, when confronting the political establishment on the issue of union busting legislation:

Congress shall make no law respecting . . . or prohibiting . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble . . .

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Support Unions! March with the 99% for labor rights!

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Vote out anti union pols

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (20544) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago
  • Union Busting
  • Is Disgusting

I like that! It has a nice beat! It rhymes!

  • WHOOT!!
[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Vote out anti union pols

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Kirby101 (-5) 1 year ago

Well I see once again ows protesters caused harm to other people. The company closed the store, now everyone is out of work. Nice going assholes, ever wonder why no one takes you seriously?

[-] -1 points by dremoor (-6) from Dry Branch, GA 1 year ago

I'm trying to follow the logic here. You want to FORCE a business to stay open? Is that really what I am reading?

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

the store is closing to prevent a union from forming

[-] 2 points by shooz (26731) 1 year ago

I think he missed the part about them forming a different corporation and continuing on without a union.

Until the next one forms, and then doing the same thing over.

[-] -2 points by dremoor (-6) from Dry Branch, GA 1 year ago

I guess OWS has jumped the shark. This is absurd.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26731) 1 year ago

How so? Are you trying to say that corporations don't do that sort of thing?

[-] -1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

People have the right to unionize and strike so shouldn't the owners also have the right to take their money elsewhere?

[-] 2 points by shooz (26731) 1 year ago

For the purpose of avoiding collective bargaining?

No.

[-] -1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

Well they do have that right. The employer and employee relationship is like a marriage, it has to go both ways. Both need to agree to enter the relationship but either one can sever it if they no longer want to be in it. People can do whatever they want with their money.

[-] 3 points by vitriolck (69) 1 year ago

I hate to trouble you with actual labor law, and the facts of the issue that you are commenting about, but shutting down a particular shop where a majority of workers are expressing a desire to unionize has been illegal since the passage of the Wagner Act.

The reason why these employees want a union is that they claim the management have engaged in wage theft (illegal), intimidation of union activists (illegal) and minimum wage violations (illegal). What you seem to be saying with your "marriage" metaphor is that its one partner bears no culpability for abusing the other, as long as she has the right to leave.

The whole, 'it sucks but people can do what they want with their money' is a reprehensible absolutist view of property rights. It just means a race to the bottom for workers and absolute power in the hands of the rich to abuse everyone with less than them. If that's the view you hold you are essentially hostile to OWS stated goals, principles etc. That must be why you are making back-handed anti-union/ pro-abusive wage stealing employer comments about a story it appears you didn't read beyond the headline.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

What if the investors who own this business feel that unionization will cause this investment to not be all that attractive anymore? Shouldn't they have the right to divest themselves from it? Wouldn't you sell a stock that you had if you felt the company was not going to be as profitable anymore?

Again, I don't know the specifics of this case outside of the one-sided article printed above so I am speaking in principle. If the Wagner Act is being violated then the business should be reprimanded as appropriate. But if their profit margins are already razor thin, and unionization would eat up the rest of those margins, the owners should be allowed to divest themselves as they see fit.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26731) 1 year ago

Sign the contract, then screw 'em anyway!

Only abide by the rules you want to!

It's the way of the asshole.

[-] -1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

Do you have a copy of the contract? I don't know of any hourly workers at bagel shops that have anything other than an at will contract. Don't get me wrong, it sucks. But it is their right.

And this isn't just about this specific case but in principle. If you had money invested in a company and now their business model looked a lot less appealing to you, wouldn't you have the right to take your money and invest it elsewhere? This is no different.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26731) 1 year ago

Happy labor day....................Jerk!!!

May all your burgers burn, and may you work for a pittance!!!

Now go back and read that they did have a contract.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

Look this really sucks for the workers and I feel bad for them. But an investor has the right to take his money elsewhere, regardless of the reason.

And if the contract was valid and stated that they could not do this, then I wouldn't worry about it because the NLG will get these guys a lot more than the $8 an hour they were making. That is not the typical type of contract that minimum wage employees sign though.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26731) 1 year ago

That's correct!!!

Contracts be damned!!!!

Go puck a rubber now.

I hope you have to work for minimum wage tomorrow!

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

That is a little much, it is one thing to do hope I have to work for minimum wage but I think you have crossed the line hoping that my burgers are burnt and my buns are stale. I will report back on the quality of both my burgers and my buns when I return home tonight. Enjoy the beautiful day.

[-] -1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

I have the day off with full pay tomorrow, it is a holiday remember?

And I would bet my holiday pay tomorrow that no where in the contract does it say that the owners cannot close down a shop that they own.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26731) 1 year ago

Too bad you don't deserve it.

Too bad you have no concept of "bargaining in good faith".

[-] 0 points by vitriolck (69) 1 year ago

Gee, enjoy the full pay for a holiday that wouldn't exist if labor unions hadn't spent decades fighting scumbag employers like these guys who'd rather shut down than bargain in good faith.

[-] -2 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

Again, I am talking more in principle than this specific example and all I am saying is that investors have the right to withdraw their investment and take it elsewhere if the investment is no longer as attractive. This is surely one slimy way to do it but if they feel their money is now better spent elsewhere, and obviously they do because I am sure they would like to keep making money, it is their money to invest as to how they see fit.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26731) 1 year ago

Endorsing slimy business practices on labor day!!!!!

You would do that mooks.

Now, go eat some burnt burgers. On stale buns, I might add.

[-] -1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

You never answered my question.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26731) 1 year ago

It's you who thinks contracts have no valid meaning.

Go eat a burnt burger.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

Is there a copy of the contract for us to read?

[-] 1 points by shooz (26731) 1 year ago

Contact the union involved.

You are insufferable, to act this way on LABOR day.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 1 year ago

No.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

Yes. It isn't necessarily a nice thing to do but it is every bit their right, it is their money and they are free to do what they want with it.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Workers have a moral equity in the businesses they serve. So the answer is still no.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

But without the actual equity provided by the owners, all the moral equity is worthless.

[-] 3 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 1 year ago

And without workers no boss has diddley squit.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

Exactly, they need each other. If it isn't working for one side anymore, they should be able to up and leave, taking either their moral equity or actual equity with them to use elsewhere.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Usually in a divorce one can't just "up and leave." Ever hear of alimony, spousal support, child support? Maybe they don't have that stuff where you live?

http://tinyurl.com/br9qptq

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

Ever hear of a pre-nup? I would bet that these low wage workers are at will employees which in the marriage example would be pretty similar to a pre-nup in that either side can end the relationship at will with nothing owed to the other.

[-] 3 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Well the point is that the workers no longer be treated like one night stands or motel dates. That's the fight, it's what it's about. What's right is right. Workers must unite.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z0q56XfYgY

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

Moral equity lol sounds like someone who has never ran a business rofl moal equity lol how fucking stupid.

[-] -3 points by dremoor (-6) from Dry Branch, GA 1 year ago

oh no! it's TEH EVIL corporations exploiting the workers. No, this is a few dudes in a small business who are exercising their property rights in a free society.

I tiny little bagel shop... truly the 1%... OWS has been co opted by unions.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Actually, increasing union membership, and collective bargaining are at the heart of the inequality in wealth debate that Occupy has brought about this past year.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Just waiting to use that shark comment.

I guess you don't really care about the workers.?

[-] -1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

I support people having the right to unionize and a right to strike but at the same time, don't the owners have the right to take their money elsewhere? Organized labor and employers need to have a give and take relationship. It is like a marriage and when both sides are happy it is the optimal employer-employee relationship that we have in the US.

A marriage where one side doesn't even want to try is just going to fail anyways and you might as well not even attempt it. I have no ideas what Hot and Crusty's profit margins are but if they feel that they are better off closing stores than paying higher wages then that is their right, just as it is the right of the workers to unionize.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Clearly an example of an abusive husband. He would rather murder his wife than to supply her basic needs.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

Which is why the marriage should have never have happened in the first place. Both sides need to work together for it to be successful. Sucks for the workers of this place though, that is for sure.

[-] 4 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

It's a typical tactic used to break strikes for the last hundred years. The lower 90% are starting to wise up and will no longer settle for less. We'll be seeing more of this and probably violence as well.

[-] 0 points by vitriolck (69) 1 year ago

Ah, return of the troll. No, they don't have the 'right' to close a location rather than recognize a union that the workers have voted for. That would negate the workers' right to freedom of association (which is how the formation of labor unions has been seen legally for a long time. You might only care about the rights of bosses. I care (much more) about people's right to assemble, and their right to a decent life and working conditions.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

But what if union demands make the business less profitable? I am not in the bakery business but I would imagine profit margins are pretty slim to begin with. If you were the owner and you aren't going to a good return on your investment, wouldn't you take your money elsewhere?

[-] 1 points by vitriolck (69) 1 year ago

If they can't make a profit without union busting and paying less than minimum wage then I wouldn't have invested in them to begin with, but that is a moot point. This isn't a publicly traded company. Nobody is investing in it or not investing in it.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

Um yeah, the people who own it have invested in it. Just because it isn't public doesn't mean there are not investors, it just means that shares are not traded publicly. If they want to take their money elsewhere, it is their right. They can't do it for the sole reason of union busting, but they can certainly do it to protect the capital they have invested in it. And without seeing their books, we really have no idea. I think it is obvious though that unionization will hurt the margins and if they are already thin, it may be the breaking point. But again, we don't know any of this from the one-sided article printed above. All I am saying is they have the right to take their money elsewhere to get a better return.