Re: [olympiaworkers] Status of Pizza Time?

First off, it was a walk out, not a lock out.  I think they walked out for very good reasons.  I still support their decision to strike.  Unfortunately, they were not officially unionized when they went on strike, so they had no rights guaranteed to striking workers. 

 

Secondly, you're right.  The new owners did know of the situation, which means they are buying a reputation.  That still doesn't obligate them to employ strikers, legally.  Morally, perhaps it is a different matter.  I must say, though, you are grossly exagerating the matter by tieing it to rape.  Not hiring a pizza cook is nothing like not stopping forced sex.  It is an analogy that is disgracetful and uncalled for.

 

As far as the right to employment, please tell me the law that states any of the workers had a right to the jobs they were striking from.  If you can tell me that, then perhaps you can tell me why the strikers don't have their jobs back.  I don't like what happened to them.  I knew them.  I like them. I picketed with them.  That doesn't mean I am going to pretend that the law was on their side.  The law is not always right.  It doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

You ask me why I am here?  Because I was there.  Just because I support them, doesn't mean I think everyone who opposes them is wrong.  I don't live in a world where everything is fair and no one is going to screw me over.  I don't know anyone who has or does, nor do I expect to know anyone who will, so I do my best to protect myself.  If you don't want at will employment, don't sign a contract making your employment at will.  You may find it hard to gain employment, but the high road is not an easy one.  You'll also find there are far less at will employment contracts outside of chain stores. 

 

Walking out was the high road, but it also made their jobs forfeit.  They knew this at the time and they did what they saw as right, anyway.  What lesson did I take away from their misfortune?  Organize.  If you want to strike and keep your job, you'd better get the law on your side.  Then there will be an obligation and a right to a job.

 

Nothing I have said in any of my emails has been in support of Pizza Time.  It has been a discussion of legality.  I do not support Pizza Time.  I have not bought pizza from them since the dispute.  I will not buy pizza from them in the forseeable future.  Not just because the owners are jerks, but because the pizza isn't that good, either.  My aim was to bring about a discussion of the events surrounding the strike.  You are awful quick to make an enemy of an ally.  Please don't mistake my arguments for an attack.  It is important to have a diversity of ideas and opinions to come to a critical conclusion.  Otherwise we are acting out of blind passion, not reason.

 

 

-Éamon

 

On 2/11/07, Wally Cuddeford <ersatzcats@gmail.com> wrote:

"He had nothing to do with the labor dispute."

Except being the new owner of the business that was continuing to lock out the striking workers, and choosing to continue that lockout.

"The corporate owners of the franchise weren't culpable in the decision."

Pizza Time Corporation could have, at several instances, intervened and at least pressured Bloking or Flores to do the right thing.  Just because there are other people to lay the blame on doesn't absolve them of not acting on a situation they were well aware of.

" 'Too bad the last bosses treated you like shit, we're staying out of it,' is, in my mind at least, a legitimate position."

What does that mean?  "Sorry you got raped in front of me.  I guess I could have stopped it, but you know, it didn't really have anything to do with me, did it?"

"The workers did not have a right to those jobs."

That's awfully turn-of-the-century of you.  Why are you on this listserv again?

"Shitty deal, but that's part of signing an at will contract." 

This is the most important thing to recognize in all this.  The business's actions are not justified by their own invented circumstances.  Making employment contracts "at will" does not all of a sudden make it so workers have no right to their own jobs.  Calling it a "new franchise", when it's the exact same company in the exact same storefront in the exact same town does not negate the previous labor dispute.  The NLRB saying this is legitimate labor relations does not negate the strikers' rights to their jobs.  These are invented circumstances which don't really change anything.

"I assume by 'basically told the strikers to go fuck themselves,' you mean they said something else that was less rude."

That wasn't a direct quote, but it was not any less rude.  I'm serious.  They were chased out of the store, and told to never, ever come back.  Flores called the cops on the workers multiple times.  This wasn't a silent shrug.  This was hostility.

"Some thing like, 'not our problem?'  Which it wasn't..."

Uh, new owners of the business that locked them out?  Could have resolved it, or even backed out and not taken any stand either way (which is an option folks who are unfairly thrust into bad situations don't usually have).  Once again, how do they not have an obligation in this?

"It would have been great if they'd employed the strikers, but that's not an obligation."

So, it would be nice if employers respected workers' rights to their jobs and to their dignity, but it's not an obligation?  Once again, Why are you here?

Love and Justice,
-Wally

On 2/11/07, E Doggy <edoggie@gmail.com> wrote:

"Surely, he could have backed out because the property owners didn't tell him everything, but he didn't.  He kept opening up the shop, and basically told the strikers to go fuck themselves, and that they had no rights to those jobs."

 

He could have, but why would he?  He had nothing to do with the labor dispute.  The dispute didn't have much, if anything, to do with anyone outside of the Blokings and other local owners.  The corporate owners of the franchise weren't culpable in the decision.  Just because a previous owner is a douche bag is no reason for someone not to buy a shop.  "Too bad the last bosses treated you like shit, we're staying out of it," is, in my mind at least, a legitimate position.  The workers did not have a right to those jobs.  Shitty deal, but that's part of signing an at will contract.  The abuse and neglect was on the Blokings, not the new owners.  I assume by "basically told the strikers to go fuck themselves," you mean they said something else that was less rude.  Some thing like, "not our problem?"  Which it wasn't...  It would have been great if they'd employed the strikers, but that's not an obligation. 

 

 

-Éamon

 

On 2/11/07, Wally Cuddeford <ersatzcats@gmail.com > wrote:

To Mike,

I think you misunderstood me.  I never suggested turning away donations of food over some sense of indignation.  But if this donation of food had a condition that all the bullcrap they've been responsible for in the past has to be forgiven in exchange for it, then it wouldn't really be a "donation", would it?  It would be self-service on their part, like when middle-class liberals donate money to Starvation Army and then go around saying they do so much for the poor homeless.

I'm not assuming anything about the Pizza Time food.  I don't know what the story behind it is.  That's why I'm asking the folks who would know.  I want to find out if this is charity or if this is solidarity, if you get my drift.

To Éamon,

They're not the original owner, Shane Bloking, but they're quite culpable themselves.  The Pizza Time strikers made it clear well before Flores et al opened up shop that there was an unresolved labor issue, which could only be resolved by rehiring the striking workers.  Yes, it sucks that they bought into the business not knowing about the issue, but sometimes that happens.  What did Flores et al do to resolve this?  Surely, he could have backed out because the property owners didn't tell him everything, but he didn't.  He kept opening up the shop, and basically told the strikers to go fuck themselves, and that they had no rights to those jobs.  Unless there's new developments, Pizza Crime got all the persecution it deserved.

Love and Justice,
-Wally

On 2/11/07, E Doggy <edoggie@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't know anything about the pizzas at the camp, but I was around for the strike.

I would like to remind folks that the current owners of Pizza Time are not the owners that would not negotiate with the striking workers.  The current owners bought the shop without knowledge of the Labor dispute.  The man (Shane Bloking?  I forgot most of the names involved) who was to blame for the firings is no longer an owner.  I don't know the standing in the business of the man who owned the building, but I believe he sold his share, as well.  What remains is whether or not the new owners ever had any ethical obligation to hire on the workers fired for the walkout.  If they employed family members and a couple of friends, should said friends and family have been fired in order to rehire workers employed by a previous owner?  Perhaps they really are calous jerks and irresponsible business people.  I have been out of the loop on this issue for quite a while.  Do I have my facts wrong?  Do you disagree with me?

 

 

-Éamon

 

On 2/11/07, Wally Cuddeford < ersatzcats@gmail.com > wrote:

So, on a couple occasions I saw a Pizza Time delivery guy bring a big pile of Pizza Time pizzas to Camp Quixote.  This raises a lot of questions, given the big lockout and strike a couple years back in which a whole unionized staff was fired.

1) Were the pizzas bought, or were they donated?

2) If they were bought, Why the Hell are we buying our pizzas at Pizza Time?

3) If they were donated by Pizza Time to the homeless for tent city, does that not change things?  Time to at least re-evaluate the ongoing blacklisting of Pizza Time?  I know, a few free pizzas is a small, small gesture considering Pizza Crime's history in Olympia.  Buuuut, if Pizza Time's owners had reconsidered their stance, is this not how they might first show it?

4) Should there be no re-evaluation of Pizza Time based on the notion that our reconsideration cannot be bought with a few pizzas?  Or should a gesture perhaps be made to re-open discussions with it's owners as to how to make their business respectable again, if maybe that's what they want?

Any thoughts?
-Wally