UNITE HERE Local 17 severs ties with Murray's
In a sad and bitter end to a sixth-month and longer dispute with Murray's Restaurant, UNITE HERE Local 17 has withdrawn unfair labor practice charges the union filed and also has "disclaimed interest" in representing workers there.
Murray's employees have been working under an employer-imposed contract since February, a contract that slashed pay and benefits.
The union hoped a favorable ruling May 28 from the National Labor Relations Board on charges the union filed in April would lead to a settlement (Labor Review, June 18, 2010).
But, once the case went before an administrative law judge in July, an outcome favoring the employer appeared likely, Local 17 president Nancy Goldman reported, so the union withdrew the charges.
Goldman said Local 17 mailed a letter August 17 to Murray's employees informing them that the union was formally withdrawing from representing them.
Murray's will be "forever" on Local 17's "do not patronize list," Goldman said.
"We had to make a very difficult decision," Goldman said. "This union has represented workers at Murray's for many, many years, but the relationship is soured beyond repair."
Local 17 has represented cooks, servers, dishwashers and bartenders at Murray's for nearly 50 years. Many employees have worked there 10, 20, 30 years.
The family-owned downtown Minneapolis restaurant has been a place for special occasions for three generations.
But the current generation of Murray's ownership, the union found, became resolute in an effort to gut the Local 17 contract which provided healthcare, vacation pay, holidays, rights on the job and living wages for their employees.
Local 17 came to the decision to withdraw from representing the 40 workers at Murray's because, Goldman said, "the idea of having a contract means that both parties are willing to work for the betterment of the business, while attending to the needs of the people who keep the business running - the workers!"
"It's unfortunate that Local 17 had to take this step," Goldman said. "We wish the workers well under these trying circumstances."
The Twin Cities Daily Planet is an edited news source produced by professional journalists working in collaboration with citizen journalists from the local community. We publish original reported news articles, articles republished from media partners, and some content (Free Speech Zone articles, reader-submitted blog entries, comments) that is moderated but not edited. Click here for a complete description of our editorial policies. Support people-powered non-profit journalism! Volunteer, contribute news, or become a member to keep the Daily Planet in orbit. |
We're people-powered journalism! Click on story links (below) to see more story information, and then email editor@tcdailyplanet.net if you want to report.
• 
Comments
How does not patronizing a
How does not patronizing a restaurant help the workers that are still there? No indication there was overwhelming support for union from those workers so I guess this breakup is for the best.
Union
How does not patronizing a restaurant do any good for the workers there?
Eh, sounds like there wasn't much union support there anyway, so a) I doubt the union pulled out so much as got the hint to go away and b) this breakup is probably what all parties preferred.
Would you pay $35. for a hamburger?
Okay, let me give it to you straight. As a former small restaurant owner and multi decade hourly wage employee in restaurants all over the twin cities, I think I can speak somewhat knowledgeably on the subject.
In order for a small business/restaurant to provide a living wage, health benefits and so on to their hourly employees, while maintaining a level of quality necessary to delight all guests so that they continue to patronize their establishment; they must have sufficient revenue to provide these benefits. Most restaurants run on a budget with a minumum of 70% percent operations costs. On a great day, that is. Few owners and upper level managers in the smaller houses are getting rich, especially when you consider the work hours required to maintain a successful restaurant. We're talking anywhere between 70 and 90 hours a week for most management jobs. Quite simply, a salaried schedule with no provision for overtime is de riguer for most restaurant managers and executives, chain and independant alike.
When hourly labor costs run too high and when there is little flexibility in a union "job description", that is: the salad guy will not help the steak guy when he is in the weeds and vice versa; a mangement figure will have to fill in the gaps, making their already stressful job even more demanding.
Do I hold a grudge against the union? Perhaps. I had circumstance quite a few years ago to work in a restaurant where the workers were striking so that tipped employees would be paid a living wage above and beyond their tips. There was no way the mangement could have paid this increased wage without serious cuts to operating costs as well as high price increases for their products. When I arrived for work simply as a friend of the owner trying to keep said establishment open so that the striking employees would have a house to come back to after their hard won right by others to strike, I was greeted with harrassment and abusive language from the picketers, including the picketers screaming "puss filled bloody scab!" at my friends eight year old daughter who was accompanying me to work that day as she had no child care. Not the best P.R. for a group trying to gain the favor of prospective members.
It is one thing to demand an end to wage disparity in a large corporation where the income gap is obscene and disgraceful. No doubt everyone deserves at the very least a living wage and health benefits.
So what to do? When a restaurant's operationg costs increase to unsustainable levels there are two options for management; cut costs from within the house, scale back hourly schedules and increase management duties or raise prices, so I ask you: would you pay $55. for a hamburger? Red herring? Absolutely not, do a little research my friends before you blindly embrace any cause. Ties to a union are not always what they seem.
Until municpalites are willing to levy reasonable licensing fees and taxes, and cease to offer sweetheart deals to corporate houses, until suppliers are willing to cut the same deals with small restaurants as they do multi-national chains (a box of french fries for example, when I was in the business two years ago were $15 for a Bon Appetit managed house, and the same box of fries cost nearly twice that for a smaller house. Not that I am an advocate for boxed french fries of course!) But the example can be spread across the board.
When I see guests cued up and ready to pay considerably larger prices for the same and nearly always better experience at a smaller house, would I ever support the local 17.
We all must make sacrifices so that our brothers and sisters working in the smaller houses can earn a living wage. And by "we all" I mean the tipped employees as well they are often compensated far more than the person washing your dishes. When servers are willing to share tips throughout the house, when vendors are willing to cut the same price deals to all restaurants and when guests are willing to pay what it actually costs a smaller house to provide a living wage, we will no longer hear sad stories like that of the Murray's workers.
Post new comment