Bronx Bakery Closing Imminent, But Union Continues Fighting
October 7
10:30 am
BCTGM Local 50 members protest during the Stella D'Oro bakery strike earlier this year, in the Bronx, New York City. (Photo courtesy BCTGM.org)
By Kari Lydersen
The historic Stella D’Oro bakery in the Bronx may close as early as Oct. 9, putting 130 union members out of a job after their victorious 11-month strike was followed by a battle to keep their factory open.
The Connecticut private equity firm Brynwood Partners bought the bakery from Kraft in 2006 and has been at loggerheads with Local 50 of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union ever since.
Last year Brynwood tried to force the union to accept pay cuts of up to 25 percent for “unskilled” workers, gutted severance and vacation pay, and steeply increased healthcare costs, among other concessions. The workers went on strike in August 2008.
In June, the National Labor Relations Board ruled in the union’s favor, deciding the company bargained in bad faith and ordering workers to be reinstated with back pay.
But just as workers went back to their jobs, they were told that Brynwood was planning to sell the bakery to the North Carolina snack-maker Lance Inc., which plans to close the Bronx factory between Oct. 9 and Oct. 23 and move production to Ohio. (Read more on Alternet by Working In These Times contributor Art Levine here.)
The union is asking city and state officials to prevent the sale, arguing the company refused to consider offers from other buyers who planned to keep the Bronx plant open.
Union local president Joyce Alston sees the sale as retaliation against the union for refusing to accept the concessions, which would have turned the union into “just a dues collector,” without any real power, in her words. The union has filed a retaliation charge with the NLRB.
Alston said that over the past year, the union has been contacted by multiple potential buyers who stated their intention to keep the factory open. She provided the company’s contact information, but heard back from would-be buyers that the company ignored their requests for information.
“If this was simply about money, why would you not entertain multiple offers, so you could get the best offer you could,” she said. “This is not about keeping the company open, this is about control, this is getting back at the union. People have a right to stand up for themselves, here they are being punished for that.”
Supporters and members of the union had previously requested the city use the power of eminent domain to take control of the factory and run it as a worker-owned or publicly-owned operation. Alston said she doesn’t see that as realistic at this point, but said union leaders are looking at all legal options to keep the plant open.
“We’re hoping against all odds,” she said.
They are looking into city or state tax breaks the company has received, and arguing that until any tax breaks are “reimbursed” to tax payers, the company should not be sold to a buyer who plans to close it down when other buyers who would keep it open are waiting in the wings.
Stella D’Oro was started by an Italian immigrant couple in 1922 and sold to Nabisco in 1992, then to Kraft Foods. Workers have been represented by the BCTWGM union for four decades.
The strike and struggle to prevent the closing have garnered widespread community support. In September, supporters rallied outside Goldman Sachs, using the increasingly common tactic of targeting a major lender or investor, especially when the financial institution is a recipient of taxpayer bailout dollars. Goldman Sachs, which owns a major interest in Lance Inc., received billions in bailout funds.
After Brynwood purchased Stella D’Oro, newly appointed CEO John Dowers said, “I am delighted to be entrusted with the task of running the great Stella D’oro Company and look forward to working with our employees, customers and vendors to grow and invigorate the business.”
But Alston said the new management has been strongly anti-union from day one. She said that shortly after buying Stella D’Oro, the company got rid of Teamsters salespeople in favor of non-union independent contractors. “Then the battle began with us.”
She said the 2008 concessions request, which the company framed as financially necessary, “was not about saving money. It was about breaking the contract down so you can make as much money as possible before you flip it. The company is bashing the union, saying we’re responsible (for the impending closure) for not being willing to make concessions, which is absolutely false.”
Alston said she demanded the company tell workers exactly when the plant will close, so they can better prepare. But she said they would only give a two-week possible closing period in October, which begins Friday. A rally at New York City Hall is scheduled for Thursday, Oct. 8, to demand an injunction against the sale. Meanwhile the union is looking for openings at other worksites they represent.
“Our job is to continue to do everything we can to stop the sale,” Alston said. “And if we can’t, then to do everything we can to set up our members with other jobs.”
Posted by Kari Lydersen · jobs organized labor workplace justice · + share/save
Please Login to Comment register a new account »
About this Blog
"Working In These Times" is dedicated to providing independent and incisive coverage of the labor movement and the struggles of workers to obtain safe, healthy and just workplaces. more
Recent Posts 
- NYC Reformers Rise Again—In Transit And Teamsterdom December 9
- Brand-New Nurses Union Aims to Ramp Up Organizing, Push for Single-Payer December 8
- Working Families’ Bailout Needed Urgently. But Who Will Make it Happen? December 8
- It’s Official: Three Unions Merge to Form Nurses ‘Super Union’ December 8
- A Penny for Our Work: Florida Farmworkers Protest Grocer December 8
WORKING E-NEWSLETTER:
Receive our weekly blog round-up
Subscribe to RSS feed
Contributors
Blogroll
- Work in Progress (FDL)
- Labor Is Not a Commodity
- United Steelworkers Blog
- Jobs With Justice
- Association for Union Democracy
- National Labor Relations Board
- Open Left
- AFSCME Blog
- Talking Points Memo
- Democracy Now!
- Union Review
- Economic Policy Institute
- Robert Reich
- Left Turn
- Today’s Workplace
- Alternet: Workplace
- AFL-CIO Now Blog
- Change to Win Connect
- Monthly Review
- Talking Union
- Christopher Hayes’ Capitolism
- Labour Start
- Labor Notes
- Working Life
- Dollars and Sense
- American Prospect
Popular Topics
RSS Feed
Comments
New York Times reported that Kraft bought this venerable business/brand in 1992 for $100 million. After years of paying $20 per hour, plus 10 weeks vacation, plus full family healthcare, plus pension the business was hemorrhaging money. Brynwood bought it for $17 million in 2007 in a purely speculative transaction - almost any investment Kraft could have made, including passively dumping the money in the stock market, would have turned that into about $300 million.
By my calculation the high school drop out level worker was making more than twice what the average person doing this job in the U.S. would make. If the issue is that the average high school drop out ought to make more, then fine, let’s raise the minimum wage or mandate health care and pensions.
I’m sick of some workers getting more through intimidation and strike all the while destroying the other jobs at companies (e.g., thousands of GM engineers, accounts, supervisors that are out of work because they were burdened with unreasonable labor contracts). Its nice to see that these Union morons are all going to be out of work.
The most telling thing is that the quotes are “I don’t know where I’m going to find a job nearly this high paying…” Neither do I. Good luck to you!!
“I’m sick of workers getting more through intimidation and strike”....
In reading your comments JUT you seem to envy the hard won benefits a united workforce brings but are afraid to take a stand. Typical brainwashed drone destined to work for what the elitist are willing to give. On second thought , you may be just another run of the mill greedy executive unwilling to share for fear of losing some of your gravy. In any event you are the worst of the worst and exemplify the continued degradation of our once great country.
J22
I admit to a gratuitous, unnecessary point. I am not really happy that Stella workers are losing their jobs and thus apologize.
My point, if you read carefully, is that all workers that are of less education than I was fortunate enough (and I speculate you as well) to receive ought to be able to get a fair paycheck, health care, retirement etc. It should not be dependent on union action. Raise the minimum wage, provide healthcare, tax the crap out of rich people. Focus on raising the lot of the top of the bottom 10% of wage earners.
But, let the capitalists, managers and workers alike focus on helping this country be more productive which is the only way we can afford the things (like healthcare, retirement, vacations) that we want. The class warfare model that you ascribe leads to lower productivity, standards of living, etc. in every society it has been attempted.
Our own country’s fertile laboratory of union experiments show that they invariably overplay their hand. This leads to places like Stella not growing, even at the rate of the surrounding economy for 17 years. In the case of GM, it led to industry leading losses, low capital availability for new investment and eventually, bankruptcy and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs across our economy. Thanks to teacher unions, we have inner city schools that are in the process of losing their third generation of children despite spending of well into five figures per pupil. But here in New York, the Union has fought to ensure that thousands of teachers found to be incompetent get paid not to work. Unions in the 1920’s battling child labor, 80 work weeks, no disability compensation had a place. Unions trying to maintain double or triple the market value of their work today, fighting on behalf of the most incompetent among them are really damaging to all. I can’t think of one example of a stable, improving company that has unions except for a few with monopolistic positions that can just pass their costs onto the rest of us.
JUT
To your point that all workers should be able to get a fair paycheck, healthcare, retirement etc. I totally agree. In an ideal society there would be no need for Unions. Unfortunately, our society does not require company’s to treat their employees fairly.
I will admit that many Unions have lost their way especially to your point of protecting incompetence. If you look into these situations closely I think you will find that the Union is mandated by law by a duty of fair representation.Because of our skewed labor laws that promote union members filing charges against their Union all discharge cases must be represented diligintly by the Union. What the general public does not hear about are the many times employers fail to do their homework in building their case against many of these sub performers. What you have to remember is, at least the employer must have and prove a valid reason to terminate employees. Yes this may be a double edged sword but at least you cannot be fired to make room for the boss’s cousin.
I for one think class warfare is certainly on the horizon. Do you think it fair that CEO’s in this country make well over 411 times the average worker and yet many of these same companies’ fail to provide health insurance and a living wage for their workers. Do you think what happened on Wall Street last year was a result of benevolance toward the poor. Indeed not, it was a result of the elite grabbing for more and getting caught. Do you think it fair that these incompetent and greedy fools are still in positions to make decisions for the rest of us. When the taxpayers bailed these people out, the debacle was portrayed as an impending worldwide collapse as never before seen so the country and our people rallied for these “freeloaders”. On the other hand, the Unions were demonized as greedy coffee break non performers who crippled the productivety of the Auto industry. I was amazed how the brainwashed masses in this country, most who are in dire need of a Union themselves railed against the workers in this country. The “right to work” coalition has done a marvelous job at dismantling unionizing through propaganda.
Please reflect or research back to a time when America was proud and strong. I feel we were at our best when the Unions were strongest. At least the masses had a voice and the corporations were kept in check.
One of the red herrings in the debate is the lazy CEO. Yes, they are overpaid. So are the left-wing actors making $10 million per box office bomb, the plaintiffs lawyers making millions monday morning quarterbacking doctors, etc. For that matter, how about all the people that win the lottery? Even if you redistributed every nickel, you’ve got maybe .05% of the economy. For an hourly worker, that will work out to about $0.05 per hour.
On the bankers, I have a much more personal view. Way back when, I quit an investment banking job (or rather did not accept promotion from a summer internship) because the ‘best’ senior bankers were as avaricious as it seems from the outside looking in. The only cultural currency at those places is the fees earned and deals done. CEO’s of those places make a lot less than the key deal makers who earn the fees: They have the negotiating leverage of a star basketball player or actor. The economy needs the banks, and you’ll never, ever change their culture, but boy, the regulation needs serious retooling. I make a nice living, but my friends that stayed get plus seven figures per year. It is frustrating, but I’m glad I’m not doing it. I wouldn’t have the stomach to work for a place like Brynwood either, although I don’t blame them - Kraft would have shut the place down if Brynwood didn’t buy it.
Your harking back to the “good old days” of high union involvement in the economy ignores what has fundamentally changed since the 50’s. Japan and Western Europe needed our industrial capacity to rebuild. Without global competition we could afford a lot of things, including silly work rules. That global capacity has been rebuilt with China and South Korea added to the mix. The success of our economy was not the result of unions but rather unions were able to succeed because the inefficiencies that they imposed could be absorbed in an uncompetitive world market.
Getting back to Stella, the Union there did not take it as their responsibility to make sure that its owners could make a profit. For 17 years, they took more and more, demanded pay and benefits way beyond what Stella’s competitors were paying, and that is in the U.S. No business can survive that way. Stella languished and got sold to a group willing to take the public relations hit to bust the Union (Kraft didn’t want to get their brand image tarnished is my guess).
You are right about the labor laws forcing Unions to represent even the most deserving candidate for termination in a grievance process. That’s why the laws are in bad need of change in precisely the opposite direction that we are headed.
The truth is that firing people really sucks. I keep a bottle of scotch in my office for when I have to do it. If there is a sadist out there that cans people for fun, I haven’t met him/her (perhaps, ‘chainsaw’ Al Dunlop). Lawsuits get filed for anything that looks like age, sex or race discrimination - it’s almost become a dead issue on the ground. Therefore, people get fired either because the company is letting people go because they don’t need the workers (necessary to keep productivity high) or because they believe that the person isn’t very good at their job. My personal experience is that the bias is to hold onto the bad performers way, way longer than should be done.
That being said, like pay and benefits, if we feel termination procedures need altering, why not create laws that do that? Why should these rights be different for union members than non-union members. It would save the employees dues, allow businesses to not have ‘races-to-the-bottom” on hourly pay, and eliminate productivity destruction through in-fighting between labor and management.
Better get back to work, lunch is over.
John my friend,
It seems we will never agree when you compare CEO’s with those winning the lottery or plaintiff’s attorneys. I have personally witnessed as I am sure you have ,people placed in positions of responsibility that command hgh salaries simply because of “cronism” or “nepotism”. I see the incompetence and carefree attitude daily. I have employees that have worked hard to build our business over many years just to see it destroyed by some frat brother or friend of the family. The incompetence I have witnessed is very unnerving not only because of the pervasiveness but more so because it has become the norm. If you claim to haven’t witnessed it I would have to question your integrity. Our country is in trouble because of
“the smartest guys in the room” and they will continue to interject petty devisive issues to cover up their short commings.
I hope I’m not one of those incompetent family guys.
Of course I have seen incompetent management of all sorts (and incompetent lower level employees as well trying to get workers comp while playing basketball on the side). I had a senior employee embezzle a huge amount of money from us right under my nose. I’ve let some guys talk their way into jobs and stay in them for a year or two without getting anything done. The toughest are the guys that work their tails off, but just can’t do it (really tough on their staff, but talk about needing scotch when you let them go). And, I’ve fired some people that in hindsight didn’t deserve it.
My experience is that the job at the top is not all that easy, and when they are done poorly, really bad things happen to both employees and investors. This makes the case for why they (CEO’s) get paid a lot.
However, in my view I would be happy to see a 70% marginal tax rate on people like me that are lucky enough from all ilks (lawyers, lottery winners, make it 80% for the bankers and investment managers) to be making that kind of money.
Going over these comments proved to be very interesting. When the whole “right to work” thing began, I believe its mission was only to make it illegal for one to be forced to join a union as a condition of employment. At one point in my life I was quite anti-union but changed my mind after learning of how many lives were destroyed following the union-busting tactics employed during the Reagan years. Now many feel that the only way to really get ahead is to buy a lottery ticked and hope to win the big jackpot.
Maybe some people who had less than a high-school education are making more than they should, at least according to one poster. And maybe those who are affected by plant closings will have a hard time finding a job that pays as much as their old one. The big problem comes in when those used to making, say $15 an hour are forced into a job paying half or even a third what their old one did. And perhaps they had already signed contracts for car, home or other payments, and their lenders are not going to be willing to accept even a 10 percent amount in their recoupment. Of course in some cases you can arrange for lower payments, but you usually pay a rather hefty user fee for doing so.