Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Fired San Francisco IWW Realfood Workers Get Boost
By David Lazarus - San Francisco Chronicle November 24, 2004.
Fired IWW workers at Real Foods may be rehired.
Fired IWW workers at Real Foods may be rehired.
Federal labor authorities say they expect to issue a complaint today against a Utah vitamin company that closed a San Francisco health-food store more than a year ago, allegedly to prevent its 30 workers from joining a union.
"We found that there is sufficient evidence that the National Labor Relations Act was violated," said Olivia Garcia, a deputy regional attorney for the National Labor Relations Board.
Barring a last-minute settlement -- which the Utah company, Nutraceutical International, insists won't happen because it did nothing wrong -- the federal complaint will lead to a trial within the next few months.
The case pitting an out-of-state corporation against San Francisco's feisty Noe Valley neighborhood has escalated far beyond the scope of typical community squabbles. Even House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a San Francisco Democrat, has taken an interest.
"This decision has implications that extend far beyond Noe Valley," she told me by e-mail. "It sends a clear and strong message that workers' rights must and will be protected."
Steve Young, the former 49ers quarterback, has served on Nutraceutical's board since 1998. He couldn't be reached for comment.
Nutraceutical bought three of the five Bay Area Real Food Co. outlets in 2002 for $2.7 million. The Noe Valley branch was by far the most profitable, former employees say, and staffers believed joining a union would give them better benefits and working conditions.
Former employees say they told company officials about their plans to organize in early August 2003 and presented a list of demands. They said they were told that a meeting would be held in September to discuss the matter.
However, Nutraceutical closed the Noe Valley store with no warning to customers on Aug. 29, 2003. The company, which had informed workers only hours earlier that they were being let go, said the closure was part of long- standing renovation plans.
But Garcia at the National Labor Relations Board said federal investigators determined that the store was deliberately closed to prevent the Real Food workers from unionizing.
She said the board found evidence that Nutraceutical threatened employees in May 2003 that they could lose their jobs if they pursued plans to join a union.
Garcia also said investigators concluded that an awards program introduced by Nutraceutical a month later was intended solely to induce workers not to organize.
Moreover, she said evidence exists that the company told workers shortly before the Real Food closure that Nutraceutical would rather shutter the outlet than permit employees to join a union.
"They then took the extreme measure of closing the store under the guise of needing to remodel," Garcia said. "These actions were taken to interfere with the employees' right to organize."
The store remains closed.
Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act says it's an unfair labor practice for employers "to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees" who seek union protection.
Stephen Hirschfeld, a San Francisco labor lawyer representing Nutraceutical, said the company is "very disappointed by what the NLRB is doing."
But he said Nutraceutical has no intention of backing down.
"We are absolutely confident that my client did nothing wrong and will be vindicated when this comes to trial," Hirschfeld said.
"There will absolutely not be a settlement in the case," he added. "We shouldn't be settling a case like this. It sends a wrong message to the community."
In response to the Real Food closure, the Noe Valley community has started its own farmers market and has submitted petitions calling for Nutraceutical to either rehire all fired workers or walk away from the outlet.
Peter Gabel, a Noe Valley resident who has spearheaded efforts to oppose Nutraceutical's actions, said he is dismayed that the company won't consider a settlement.
"That's the problem with this company," he said. "They've damaged the community for 15 months and don't think they've done anything wrong."
Gabel added: "This is our community. When an out-of-state corporation refuses to acknowledge the community's ethical values, it's wrong."
Bevan Dufty, who represents Noe Valley on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, said that since Real Food was closed, at least a half-dozen other nearby shops have gone belly-up or moved away.
He said this entire episode has been "bad across the board. It's been bad for the workers, and it's been bad for the community."
Still, Dufty is hopeful that a detente can be reached with Nutraceutical if it is determined to remain in the neighborhood despite all the bad blood that now exists.
"It will be tough," he said. "It's a challenge we have to work on."
Hirschfeld, the Nutraceutical lawyer, said the company believes that once the case is resolved in Nutraceutical's favor, bygones will be bygones.
"My client is absolutely convinced that when this whole process is behind us, we'll be able to mend fences with the community," he said.
That remains to be seen. Kim Rohrbach, one of the fired Real Food workers, said the National Labor Relations Board complaint vindicates the anti- Nutraceutical stance taken by Noe Valley residents.
"After 15 months, it's welcome news," she said.
Rohrbach also said that despite everything that has happened, she's still eager to get her old job back -- but not because Nutraceutical is such a great company to work for.
"I would go back to work for them because people in a position of power need to be stood up against," Rohrbach said.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Well, maybe they'll offer everyone a job in Utah. They sure aren't going to reopen a store in SF's hostile environment.
I agree completely, Leo.
Capitalists are no longer willing to invest in San Francisco-based enterprises. Those who do, do so out of extreme beneficience--god knows they aren't making any profit. Not even a penny.
Capitalists are no longer willing to invest in San Francisco-based enterprises. Those who do, do so out of extreme beneficience--god knows they aren't making any profit. Not even a penny.
If areas in the US and the world keep commpeitng for who can offer the lowest wages and the most docile employees"to bring in Buisness". wages everyewhare will go down and we will leve under the cansatnt fear of losing our jobs and being fored by our boses weathr we live in San Farcisco ,Utah or Shanghigh.
this cycle of deacling wages, benefit cutting as wellas layoffs and declining unployemnt and fearbating will cotinue until we stand up for ourselves and have some kind of solidarity with eatch other.
this cycle of deacling wages, benefit cutting as wellas layoffs and declining unployemnt and fearbating will cotinue until we stand up for ourselves and have some kind of solidarity with eatch other.
y'all have been saying that "race to the bottom" thing for a while, but it seems like the low wage thing is bringing long term advantages to the people of the last, largest "communist" nation on earth, china (at the expense of deeply class-compromised "first world" labor), and has incidentally given china enormous amounts of power over the american economy. this would even seem to have been predictable in marxist terms-- they got the means of production, after all, and thus of wealth creation, and the usa has got offshoring and bush economics. iraq is hardly "added value."
of course, the other shoe is their wto membership. i know there'll be a lot of flack about how china isn't communist (and certainly they aren't by 19th century german standards), especially as the other option is that the american left was wrong, and china is looking like a strong candidate for next emerging superpower, little red books and all.
anyway, the bottom is hardly where they're headed. it would seem that any kind of logic is going to be more useful in understanding events and their consequences, than this sort of knee jerk sloganeering.
of course, the other shoe is their wto membership. i know there'll be a lot of flack about how china isn't communist (and certainly they aren't by 19th century german standards), especially as the other option is that the american left was wrong, and china is looking like a strong candidate for next emerging superpower, little red books and all.
anyway, the bottom is hardly where they're headed. it would seem that any kind of logic is going to be more useful in understanding events and their consequences, than this sort of knee jerk sloganeering.
Sounds like you've fallen for the "everyone in china is getting rich" story-line relentlessly conveyed in the american mainstream media.
Anyone who chooses to dig below the surface--which requires foresaking mainstream american sources--will learn that the new "middle class" found in coastal cities is hardly representative of most Chinese peoples' living situation.
It is estimated that in the next decade there will be more than 150 million migrants in China--people who have no land, no capital, no home, and no stable source of income. This is the vast "reserve army of labor," comprised of displaced former state workers and landless peasants, who--if they're "lucky"--get to sell their labor to multinational firms for peanuts and toil under terrible conditions.
The "iron rice bowl" that ensured basic provisions under the state capitalist maoists is being ripped apart under the new market capitalist regime. Basic regulations of industry are virtually non-existent. This is why thousands of Chinese workers die every year in recently-privatized mines.
Riots and strikes in the interior of the country are common. Of course, the American mainstream media--so transfixed by the latest McDonald's in Bejing--hardly ever bother to note these less-than-"on message" facts.
Anyone who chooses to dig below the surface--which requires foresaking mainstream american sources--will learn that the new "middle class" found in coastal cities is hardly representative of most Chinese peoples' living situation.
It is estimated that in the next decade there will be more than 150 million migrants in China--people who have no land, no capital, no home, and no stable source of income. This is the vast "reserve army of labor," comprised of displaced former state workers and landless peasants, who--if they're "lucky"--get to sell their labor to multinational firms for peanuts and toil under terrible conditions.
The "iron rice bowl" that ensured basic provisions under the state capitalist maoists is being ripped apart under the new market capitalist regime. Basic regulations of industry are virtually non-existent. This is why thousands of Chinese workers die every year in recently-privatized mines.
Riots and strikes in the interior of the country are common. Of course, the American mainstream media--so transfixed by the latest McDonald's in Bejing--hardly ever bother to note these less-than-"on message" facts.
china has always had the massive poverty and displacement. to say nothing of the extremely conservative political class. it has not always had the middle class, and the factories.
the chinese are basically in their "NEP" phase, if you will. there's growing pains, but it's because of growth. their medicine is fantastic. the people are resilient, and ever increasingly educated. and china's got global access to markets, and goods that can compete on that market (unlike much of the ussr's production).
saying there's poverty in china is like saying there's sand in the desert, that there's snow at the poles. well there is, but irrigation can change it, spectactularly if not necessarily sustainably.
i'm looking at the next 50-100 years, and i bet china will sustain it. you're looking at the, what, 1880s? 1890s? i dunno, when was your last ideological update? and what did it think of china then (if at all)?
the chinese are basically in their "NEP" phase, if you will. there's growing pains, but it's because of growth. their medicine is fantastic. the people are resilient, and ever increasingly educated. and china's got global access to markets, and goods that can compete on that market (unlike much of the ussr's production).
saying there's poverty in china is like saying there's sand in the desert, that there's snow at the poles. well there is, but irrigation can change it, spectactularly if not necessarily sustainably.
i'm looking at the next 50-100 years, and i bet china will sustain it. you're looking at the, what, 1880s? 1890s? i dunno, when was your last ideological update? and what did it think of china then (if at all)?
I didn't shout "POVERTY IN CHINA!!" as if that was news, foolie. To say that I did is nothing more than a straw-man argument.
You're the ideologue, not I. You're the one who instead of addressing the massive increase in numbers of migrants, work-related deaths, and extreme poverty, which i referred to, falls back on the old, THOROUGHLY IDEOLOGICAL saw about "growing pains" on the way to a bright future (which apparently will never be experienced by hundreds of millions now living).
It's clear to me that you care not at all about exploitation, instead preferring to cite the Chinese peoples' resiliency as if that has anything to do with the question of the efficacy of the dictatorial market system now emerging in China.
The "middle class" that you refer to approviingly constitutes a tiny sliver of the overall population. That's why I put the term in quotes.
You yourself hint that the corporate capitalism in China is unsustainable. Ecologically, that's a no-brainer, "trees."
But even if I accepted your panglossian view, the fact remains that the benefits accrued to China have come at the expense of other "emerging markets" such as Mexico, whose export-related sector--which people like you several years ago depicted as its path to "prosperity"--has taken a big hit as manufacturing has fled Mexico's "high wages" for greener pastures in China.
Global capitalism today is, at best, a zero-sum game--a fact that ideologues like you always wish to divert attention from.
You're the ideologue, not I. You're the one who instead of addressing the massive increase in numbers of migrants, work-related deaths, and extreme poverty, which i referred to, falls back on the old, THOROUGHLY IDEOLOGICAL saw about "growing pains" on the way to a bright future (which apparently will never be experienced by hundreds of millions now living).
It's clear to me that you care not at all about exploitation, instead preferring to cite the Chinese peoples' resiliency as if that has anything to do with the question of the efficacy of the dictatorial market system now emerging in China.
The "middle class" that you refer to approviingly constitutes a tiny sliver of the overall population. That's why I put the term in quotes.
You yourself hint that the corporate capitalism in China is unsustainable. Ecologically, that's a no-brainer, "trees."
But even if I accepted your panglossian view, the fact remains that the benefits accrued to China have come at the expense of other "emerging markets" such as Mexico, whose export-related sector--which people like you several years ago depicted as its path to "prosperity"--has taken a big hit as manufacturing has fled Mexico's "high wages" for greener pastures in China.
Global capitalism today is, at best, a zero-sum game--a fact that ideologues like you always wish to divert attention from.
it's not really about the money, it's really about the power. the power america's clearcut economy will lose to china, whose economic expansion will allow it to fill (how much?) of the vacuum america will leave. after all, is not power materially determined? hmm?
foolie, indeed. you're still on about wages or something? welcome to the 21st century. news flash: your "shit wages" is someone else's "making money hand over fist." in this case, chinese fist. why do you think mexicans work in ag fields in california? because they make 10 times here what they make at home, that's why. if you ever got off your (probably rather well-fed) ass and actually went there, you might know that.
this is not a paean to capitalism. the fact that you think it is shows where the ideology lies (pun intended) in this here conversation.
how would one say it, pax sinana? or will the india-pakistan thing pre-empt it? there is of course the fact that the proliferation thing could lead to a nuclear world war after all, again, not so convenient to your determinisms, eh? so much for those wandering hordes...
by the by, china seems to have stabilized its population growth. dunno if it's reproductive rights, exactly, but i'll bet there's some freedom in it for chinese women somewhere along the line. one kid not 12. hey, that's a big deal in several ways, come to think of it.
you keep waiting for the collapse of something so you can feel vindicated in the end, in your postcapitalist bitterness. i keep waiting for china to emerge as another real superpower-type geopolitical pole, while only incidentally kicking america's ass (albeit economically, that might be enough). that's not to argue goodness, but rather, realness.
wanna put money on which of us will be satisfied first?
foolie, indeed. you're still on about wages or something? welcome to the 21st century. news flash: your "shit wages" is someone else's "making money hand over fist." in this case, chinese fist. why do you think mexicans work in ag fields in california? because they make 10 times here what they make at home, that's why. if you ever got off your (probably rather well-fed) ass and actually went there, you might know that.
this is not a paean to capitalism. the fact that you think it is shows where the ideology lies (pun intended) in this here conversation.
how would one say it, pax sinana? or will the india-pakistan thing pre-empt it? there is of course the fact that the proliferation thing could lead to a nuclear world war after all, again, not so convenient to your determinisms, eh? so much for those wandering hordes...
by the by, china seems to have stabilized its population growth. dunno if it's reproductive rights, exactly, but i'll bet there's some freedom in it for chinese women somewhere along the line. one kid not 12. hey, that's a big deal in several ways, come to think of it.
you keep waiting for the collapse of something so you can feel vindicated in the end, in your postcapitalist bitterness. i keep waiting for china to emerge as another real superpower-type geopolitical pole, while only incidentally kicking america's ass (albeit economically, that might be enough). that's not to argue goodness, but rather, realness.
wanna put money on which of us will be satisfied first?
Apparently, you've never learned an elemental rule of debate: you're supposed to knock down the arguments made by *your opponent*, not ones you concoct yourself.
That said, i'll quickly respond to YOUR assertions (as opposed to ones i could put in your mouth).
<<it's not really about the money, it's really about the power.>>
thanks for defining "it" for me. i now feel so very edumacated. but...tell me where i said "it" was about money. please use primary source material.
<<the power america's clearcut economy will lose to china>>
define "america's clearcut economy" and explain why china's economy couldn't be described similarly.
are china's rulers more preservationist than america's?
<<whose economic expansion will allow it to fill (how much?) of the vacuum america will leave. after all, is not power materially determined? hmm?>>
i find your capacity to point out the ironic fallacy contained in an argument i've never made tres impressive.
i feel so molded.
<<foolie, indeed>>
yes, i agree, you are a fool.
<<you're still on about wages or something?>>
the wages a worker receives are closely tied to the power s/he wields. the vast majority of chinese workers have little power--which goes a far way to explaining why they are paid peanuts by exploiters. tens of millions of (designedly) unemployement workers reduces working class power generally.
<<news flash: your "shit wages" is someone else's "making money hand over fist.>>
it suddenly occurs to me that nobody has ever mistaken you for being astute *or* funny.
btw: "wages" is plural. therefore it's necessary to construct that sentence as follows:
"your 'shit wages' ARE someone else's..."
<<in this case, chinese fist.>>
i didn't know nike is owned by the chinese. thanks for letting me in on the secret.
<<why do you think mexicans work in ag fields in california?>>
three reasons come to mind:
1) Mexico is close to the United States
2) Imperialized countries such as Mexico mass produce dispossessed and desperate people
3) American agri-business recruits people who are desperate and lacking basic rights afforded US citizens
<<this is not a paean to capitalism.>>
you're right: it just picked from the same cupboard of hackneyed crapola that those who seek to mythify capitalism draw from; in fact it was a paean to the Chinese state.
<<the fact that you think it is shows where the ideology lies (pun intended) in this here conversation.>>
Your clever use of language has me rolling on the floor.
<<how would one say it, pax sinana?>>
ummm, maybe one would say "pax sinana"
<<or will the india-pakistan thing pre-empt it? there is of course the fact that the proliferation thing could lead to a nuclear world war after all, again, not so convenient to your determinisms, eh? so much for those wandering hordes...>>
do you enjoy hallucinating?
<<by the by, china seems to have stabilized its population growth. dunno if it's reproductive rights, exactly, but i'll bet there's some freedom in it... gurgle gurgle blah blah, straw-man, unfunny non-retort, witless imbecility...>>
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
That said, i'll quickly respond to YOUR assertions (as opposed to ones i could put in your mouth).
<<it's not really about the money, it's really about the power.>>
thanks for defining "it" for me. i now feel so very edumacated. but...tell me where i said "it" was about money. please use primary source material.
<<the power america's clearcut economy will lose to china>>
define "america's clearcut economy" and explain why china's economy couldn't be described similarly.
are china's rulers more preservationist than america's?
<<whose economic expansion will allow it to fill (how much?) of the vacuum america will leave. after all, is not power materially determined? hmm?>>
i find your capacity to point out the ironic fallacy contained in an argument i've never made tres impressive.
i feel so molded.
<<foolie, indeed>>
yes, i agree, you are a fool.
<<you're still on about wages or something?>>
the wages a worker receives are closely tied to the power s/he wields. the vast majority of chinese workers have little power--which goes a far way to explaining why they are paid peanuts by exploiters. tens of millions of (designedly) unemployement workers reduces working class power generally.
<<news flash: your "shit wages" is someone else's "making money hand over fist.>>
it suddenly occurs to me that nobody has ever mistaken you for being astute *or* funny.
btw: "wages" is plural. therefore it's necessary to construct that sentence as follows:
"your 'shit wages' ARE someone else's..."
<<in this case, chinese fist.>>
i didn't know nike is owned by the chinese. thanks for letting me in on the secret.
<<why do you think mexicans work in ag fields in california?>>
three reasons come to mind:
1) Mexico is close to the United States
2) Imperialized countries such as Mexico mass produce dispossessed and desperate people
3) American agri-business recruits people who are desperate and lacking basic rights afforded US citizens
<<this is not a paean to capitalism.>>
you're right: it just picked from the same cupboard of hackneyed crapola that those who seek to mythify capitalism draw from; in fact it was a paean to the Chinese state.
<<the fact that you think it is shows where the ideology lies (pun intended) in this here conversation.>>
Your clever use of language has me rolling on the floor.
<<how would one say it, pax sinana?>>
ummm, maybe one would say "pax sinana"
<<or will the india-pakistan thing pre-empt it? there is of course the fact that the proliferation thing could lead to a nuclear world war after all, again, not so convenient to your determinisms, eh? so much for those wandering hordes...>>
do you enjoy hallucinating?
<<by the by, china seems to have stabilized its population growth. dunno if it's reproductive rights, exactly, but i'll bet there's some freedom in it... gurgle gurgle blah blah, straw-man, unfunny non-retort, witless imbecility...>>
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
i'm devastated.
"the wages of sin is death" according to Romans 6:23. Unless, of course, the King James Bible is of no relevance to the English language, because you (I admittedly assume) wouldn't agree with it.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$205.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network