Good thing I can't afford to eat there.

Seriously Danny?

What about the employees of the Pickwick?

If you truly think unions are an "anachronism" and that the gains workers have made with unions will stick around once unions are gone, you're in for a nasty surprise.

On topic, I love the Pickwick and am disappointed and disgusted at Chris Wisocki's actions.

Well said, String Bean.

Servers at Fine Dining restraunts make good money on tips.  My sister made well over 30K a year working 3 days per week at a fine dining establishment in Indiana being paid $2.50 per hour.  Indiana had a "tip credit" law.  The bulk of her income was on tips.   
Tips used to be 10 percent of one's bill, now an average tip is considered to be 15-20 percent.   Waitstaff in Minnesota are paid quite well, no matter what the union wants you to believe.

Use of 'sammich' automatically disqualifies one from receiving my respect for their positions.

Anyhow, let's see, things I've eaten at the Pickwick:

supermarket sausage, microwaved with canned sauerkraut : $12.00

thin milk and potato soup

dull portabella and alfredo pasta

Now, there is one thing they do right: drinks. I'll take a pink squirrel, please!

As a restaurant employee myself I just can't sympathize. MOST restaurant owners are not evil management and oil tycoons. They are in an extremely difficult industry and work just as much and as hard as the waitstaff, the cooks, the dishwashers, etc. I totally agree with String Bean: "all I see from unions is reps and union bosses getting fatter, protecting workers who shouldn't be protected, forcing fair share no matter what, and finding ways for their members to do the least work for the most pay. That's just messed up."

Authoritarians don't like unions because they have a democratizing effect in the workplace. People rant about " freedom', but spend most of their work lives in a totalitarian environment, where the only freedom they have is the freedom to quit. That is hardly an option for many workers. Unions offer some counter-weight to the total control of ownership. Of course unions aren't perfect, but why not error on the side of workers for a change? Collective action by unions has gained most of the progress achieved in the workplace to date. Also, "at will" ( non-union) employees have zero job security. We are inundated by anti-union propaganda, and rarely hear about all that unions have done for us.

Where is the *EAL* German food in town?

I don't go there anyway, ever since the time we were there, I ordered the tuna, they gave me a slab of tuna, and charged me like $25. I could have eaten better for a LOT less at tome. But I also support workers. So I won't be going there.

Hear, hear Dave Sorenson! Even though we ourselves may not be union members, all of us that enjoy vacation and sick leave, employer-paid health care and other employment benefits should be thankful for what unions have done for us.

It's terrible that The Pickwick has opted out of being a union labor establishment. While I understand the union isn't always loved or embraced I have worked in non-union jobs that were basically sweat houses! Take Wal-Mart for example. They were recently sued by employees for requiring one to work off the clock! In a Union shop that would have never happened. I believe that abolishing the union is a sad choice. I am a friend of Chris...however I will NOT support his choice to become non-union in the way it has happened and I will NOT frequent his establishment. Sorry!

To those of you who are anti-union or anti-workers:

Workers never got anything without uniting for it.

As I've said on this blog before, and now I will say again, many of the privileges you take for granted as a worker were only gained through unions. Things like:

-Weekends
-The 40-hour workweek 
-The 8-hour workday 
-Overtime 
-Sick Leave 
-Paid Vacation 
-Company-paid health insurance 
-Pensions 
-Safety and health protections 
-Grievance procedure for violation of worker  rights 
-Fairness in promotions & assignments 
-Higher wages and fair treatment on the job 
-Right to respect from managers 

These were all brought to you through union activism. Some of them are law now, but only because workers united up against their employer and said "This is not right. You cannot treat workers this way" and stuck together all the way until it was made into law through legislation or Supreme Court action.

LarryD, just an FYI: The union represents everybody, including the co-worker you don't like. We don't hire the people, we just represent them. Your employer hires these people. If they hire a bad apple, we still have to represent them, just like we have to represent you, even if you are anti-union. 

For the rest of the commenters, as far as the comments about "union fat cats" and all that: Many of you know me and my family. I work for a local union. . I make an average wage that puts me squarely in the low-to-mid middle class. I drive a car that is 9 years old with high miles, live in a middle-class neighborhood, and we live fairly paycheck-to-paycheck.

My neighbor works for a different local union. She is renting her house, has a car even older than mine, and she certainly doesn't seem to be living high on the hog. 

The "fat cat" idea is perpetuated by conservatives who are anti-workers' rights. The truth is, since the enactment of the LMRDA, unions have had to be so transparent in their spending and have to be accountable for every dime that we spend that the "fat cat" is simply a thing of the past.  Don't believe me? Find it out for yourself by searching for a local union's 990 tax form. It's public information.

Back to the original subject: those of you who are supporting Chris Wisocki, think about this: He is breaking the law. When he tried to organize a union decertification, when he started to ignore the contract, when he fired the workers: he violated the law. Apparently, though, it's okay for him to have done this because it's "his business and he should run it the way he sees fit." 

There are set processes (set by the federal government) through which Chris Wisocki could have stayed within the law and yet gotten what he was looking for. Instead, he broke the law, because he felt he didn't have to abide by that silly contract that he signed.

I bet Bernie Madoff thought the same thing.

Apologies for length...

This might be getting a bit off topic, but there's an excellent documentary about unions in the coal mines called " Harlan County, USA". Mr. Movies in the plaza used to have it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCiVMngILEI

Ha Ha. I said it was a bit off topic. Unions are good for grievances large and small.

What is the current status of the restaurant? I've always been a union supporter since my dad worked hard in a union job. I have visited the Pickwick a couple of years ago but don't know if I should go there again. I also am concerned about the employees left behind or if the older waitress(that was excellent) was one of the canned waitstaff. We are planning a vacation in Aug. 09

Hmmm.....it seems that the last time I was in the Pickwick, it was primarily high-school and college students working there.  There were a few exceptions, but primarily non-lifers--people that were working their way through school, or people working a part-time side job.  Now why, pray tell, would a penny-pinching student cough up $40/month for union dues when they won't reap the rewards of any of the benefits (pension, health care, vacation, sick leave, etc.)?  That's right.....they don't want to.

I had a similar situation while working at the Nemadji Golf Course--paying $26/paycheck in dues and got nothing as a part-time seasonal employee while the full-timers paid $29/paycheck and got all of the bennies.  When I aired my concerns to my union rep (the $60k/year golf course mechanic, who, incidentally, was the only full-time course employee), he essentially told me to f-off.  Why?  Because all of us students were paying into his pension fund and paying for his health care.....which is why AFSCME went apeshit when the City of Superior contracted out the golf course operations--they were only losing one full-time union position, but were losing thousands in unfair, forced union dues.

Basically, Todd Erickson and his union-hack buddies are pi$$ed off at Wisocki because he just cost their coffers about $20k per year for booting a union out of a workplace that the majority of workers didn't want to be part of anyhow.  If these unions are so concerned about working conditions and fair wages, they should really start working in third-world countries overseas where the really poor labor conditions are prevalent.....but of course, the union dues wouldn't amount to a middle-upper class salary in Bangladesh.

Now, the Pickwick employees are able to invest in a 401(k) (with an employer match) that they can take with them as opposed to a union pension plan that they'll most likely never see.  And they'll have an extra $40 per month, which ironically is almost double what the Obama tax cuts put in their pockets.

If you'll now excuse me, I'm going to the Pickwick to have a beer as I have been intentionally doing each day since Local 99's laughable little strike started.  I find much joy in crossing their picket line/harassment zone each day, and will continue to do so until Todd Erickson respects Chris Wisocki's right to run a business as he sees fit.

I want to read an article written by a neutral source.  I have only read versions written by the Local 99 Union representatives.  It is no wonder it ends up being a Wisocki basher.  Don't believe what you read until it is from a source that hasn't picked a side.  I proudly worked for the Wisocki family for several years.

I work at the Pickwick.  I will start by saying that the lack of respect for the employees is unreal. I was told when I signed the "handbook" that my health insurance would still be available to me only to find out that Chris decided to quit paying on everyone's health insurance a month before telling anyone.  It is not free health insurance the participants were still paying their part.  Oh yeah, no more contribution to our pension and where oh where did our union dues go that were taken out of our checks? Almost forgot he did offer us AFLAC...oh yeah that's right anyone can get that and we pay all of the premium ourselves. I am so sick of people saying that we should be thankful to have a job.  A restaurant employee is not less deserving than anyone else to have benefits.  I would like to thank all of the people supporting the union and all the people out picketing for us.

I have been a fan of the Pickwick for many years and will continue to go there every chance I get. 

What I find ironic is that these picketing employees (2 are 'employees' and the rest are other union supporters), are so concerned about job security.  What company fires it's best workers? If they are so great at what they do, then why are they so concerned? And violating labor laws? Since when does a picketing employee GO TO WORK at the place they are picketing? If you are going to picket, why would any company want that person to come in and work? That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. 

That restaurant has been in business for decades and it's not because of the union. And if they are so sick of hearing they should be happy to have a job, try not having one. I wonder what they will think when there IS no job for them? Then what? 

A restaurant is one of the hardest businesses to operate and most go under within the first year. Maybe some of these employees should sit down with Chris and look at the numbers and really learn what it takes to keep it afloat.

Sure they used to get a free meal during a shift and now they have to pay 50% of the price. I don't get a free meal or discounted meal at my workplace. They probably don't even eat the whole thing. It must be nice to watch the leftover discounted or free meal go in the trash. 

I'm sick of people thinking they are entitled to everything. And by the way, a 401k match is a blessing, not a right. A lot of companies don't even offer a match!!!  

If this business goes under, then instead of 2 people out of work, during an impasse mind you, the whole restaurant will be out of work.
 
Good luck to Chris and the rest of the loyal Pickwick supporters!!!

I'm not grasping at straws. I know the meal thing is part of the issue, however small an issue it may be. It is still an issue for some of the employees.

The point I'm trying to make is that if I worked at a place where I was disrespected and 'talked to like we are crap,' I would go elsewhere for work. There are many restaurants in Duluth and the surrounding areas, why stick it out if it's really that bad? 

I've known about 10 people who have worked there over the years and none of them said anything about ever being treated poorly or being lied to. 

I have had to deal with being told one thing and doing another at work as well...and it was by both an employer with a union and one without. The company I work for had layoffs this year and over 10% of our workforce (4000+ employees) have been let go...thus far. And we didn't get raises or bonuses this year. The consensus at my work was that people are happy to have a job. That's all I was trying to convey. 

Beth, I'm not trying to pick on you, I just don't like to see a business that has been around for that long, a staple in Duluth for decades, hit hard times. Believe me, I wish it could be worked out but i just really have a bad feeling about that union. Sorry if I offended you, it's just my opinion.

i also hate it when people try to use the "well, it's been a horrible year at my company too" cop out for defending a completely unavoidable and heinous situation.

The Pickwick, like the US auto industry is on hard times because, in a time of recession, they have failed to provide a service that the public wants to pay for.

It's not the union's fault.  It's not the workers' fault.  It is the fault of an uninspired managerial and conceptual team.

Zra, I know people who have worked there over the years, the past 15 years to be exact.
 
I just know who Chris is because he now owns the place. Don't even know what year he took over, just know it wasn't that long ago, a couple years maybe? But no, he's not a 'friend' either. But the last name is Wisocki, not Wiscoski.

I don't know his family or why some of his family members are unhappy with things. But not every employee is behind the union and in fact a good number are supporting getting the union out. It's just interesting that people who work at the same place have such completely different versions of what it's like to work there. Right or wrong, take it for what it is I guess.

I totally agree with your health care comment.  Health care costs are way too high and businesses can't afford to pay as much of the costs on their employees' behalf. Doctors and hospitals charge more, insurance companies have to pay out more, premiums go up, etc. It's a vicious cycle and nobody wins.

Yeah, I spent some time working with no benefits and 24/7 on-call no less, with the ancillary fix of an 800-number cell for free use, a bonus (depending on net profit, so, umm, non-existent), and ghost "shares" in the corporation (nicely put in place to stimulate work ethic for everyone).

But, since I actually enjoyed my job, it didn't bother me.  Sweat shops are not all that bad until you age; then it sucks.  And besides, everyone I worked with -- no matter their job -- seemed to be happy.

It's a little "if you can't stand the heat" thing, but I'm undecided as to how Chris handled the situation.

Also--I wonder if the two poor women who are now on unemployment are currently seeking other work elsewhere.....per the requirements of receiving unemployment benefits.  I'd guess no, seeing as they are spending 4-5 hours each day throwing their placard-carrying tantrum outside of the Pickwick.  Move on, ladies.....you're embarrassing yourselves over a waitressing job that you could get anywhere else in town.  If Chris Wisocki is such an ass and the working conditions are that poor, his business will go under on its own.  Funny how liberals view natural selection as OK with regards to the theory of evolution, but not OK when it comes to economics.

TK is correct.

Capitalism has failed chiefly because those who have the money are either not playing by the rules that have been established to protect the economy OR are changing the rules to allow themselves an unfair advantage over the rest of the field...and consequently are behaving irresponsibly in their pursuit of even more money. 

In this light, it seems that Tonka is the one with a skewed view of natural selection.

The ideal nature of Capitalism supposedly dictates that everyone who wishes to make money should be able to make money, but in reality, those opportunities are significantly diminished by an extreme imbalance on the control of wealth, and those with the wealth being able to control the market...in short, the only ones making money are the ones *with* money.

Their main failing is that the "free market" DEPENDS on the middle class, which is rapidly shrinking. The poor don't spend money. The middle class is what truly drives the economy, and once that disappears, Capitalism falls. So much for the novel idea.

Tonka, you have to intervene a little bit.  Just look at history.  Railroads, Communications (ooh, that's a big one), etc.

Gosh, I wish I could have been around during Ma Bell.

Small business is also the number one drop-out.  Don't get me wrong, I'm all for small local business, but that certainly can't be the basis of your argument.

See it for what it is.  It's not that rich people make rich money.  It's more like the privileged have more of an open door to make money.

The way I look at it, is, well, I don't give a shit.  Let the mice run; they really won't find the penultimate cheese.  But, monetary policy is necessary in the long run (that would be some government control over the "free" market to keep the mice from eating each other).

At no point did you say that small business isn't the backbone of the U.S. economy.  You said that small businesses go under more frequently than larger businesses.  Good observation, genius.  That doesn't dispel the fact that small businesses are the largest employer in the nation.  The vast majority of businesses in the U.S. are small businesses.  Socialistic policies will destroy the middle class, along with small businessowners.

Small business IS the basis of my argument.  Most small businesses fail within the first two years--at the point when they are employing few if any employees.  It is the 1-in-4 start-ups that end up creating jobs for the middle class.  Just think: If more people ponied up and tried to go out on their own, how many new jobs would be created?

And you also mentioned that you worked for a software CORPORATION, as well as working for Target CORPORATION.  Why not try to give it a go on your own?  There are plenty of resources for you to start your own business--many of them privately-funded.  The "door" you speak of is open for everyone.  There is no law to keep you from starting your own company--that would only be the case if the government were running everything.  If you have a product or service (or combination of the two) that is better than your competition, you will succeed.  Don't complain that certain sectors are adequately serviced--find your own niche and go get it.  Don't sell yourself short--too many people do.

Perhaps I misspoke (sp?).  The idea that small business has a strong force behind modern local economy is a stretch. Okay, maybe in a tourist environment.

I'll buy that people should do the venture capital thing, and I applaud it, but to suggest that door is the answer to general problems in economy is pretty weird.

On a side note, there's nothing more cool for me than to start a B&B off a boat.  I'm not joking.

It's only a pipe dream if you say so.  Do the research, talk to B&B owners, find out what you'd need to do to make it work.  As a small business lender here in Duluth and someone with a feel for the local economy, I could see something like that working--and even being a local attraction.  Give it a go.....I dare you.

And the "door" IS the answer, especially if you're a proponent of the middle class.  There is no reason why people can't try to start their own business.....especially with all of the resources that are out there.  Write a business plan, and if it is solid you won't have a problem finding capital to start it up.  That I can guarantee you.

I do not want to see any of the present employees negatively impacted, but would like to see all future employees non-union.  I strongly feel that the unions have outlived their purpose and are far too obstructionist.  I have encountered union business managers who work hard to intimidate those who don't belong to their club.  

When it comes to safety, hours, equitable treatment unions do a fine job....but their day in the sun is over.

zra-

Think your source is a bit biased?  You're hearing everything from your partner....who is essentially a paid extortionist.  The vast majority of American business isn't unionized, and good thing.....otherwise, we'd have lazy, overpaid whiners in all facets of business instead of those where people feel more important than they really are.

And, pray tell.....how is it "screwing" someone to cut their wages/benefits/hours?  You act like the employee is doing the employer a favor by working.  The employer is the one who has taken the risk of being in business in the first place, but yet someone the EMPLOYER offers a JOB to has the right to DEMAND more from that employer?

See, entitlement babies such as yourself are the reason that this country is going to hell in a handbasket.  You're not OWED anything by anyone.  If you want better money/bennies/hours, go work somewhere else....or better yet, go start your own business.  It is absolutely preposterous that you believe that employers make the decisions they do in order to "screw" their employees.  A business has to make a PROFIT in order to STAY in business, but of course, in your warped world, profits are bad, right?  It is--and rightly should be--the decision of the employer to run his/her business the way they see fit and to try to make as much of a profit as they desire.

News flash, zra: Profit is the only reason anything in this country EXISTS.  Now I know that you'd rather see a business owner shut down his business rather than cutting hours/pay/bennies, but that's not the way it works.  I sincerely hope that you don't have any hand in the guidance of America's youth, because your twisted world view is precisely the reason America is on a long downward spiral towards destitution.

At the risk of troll-baiting, I'm going to post here to suggest to you "TonkaTown" that you have a seriously ideologically inflected version of US history--one that is as biased as anything you are accusing others of saying.

I do not know "zra" or his partner. I am a nominal member of a union that I often do not agree with, but which I am glad exists because I have colleagues at other universities without unions and they definitely do not have useful representation in their negotiations with their employers.

This country's history suggests some pretty heavily conflicted ideas about why and how it exists. But I'm certain that the pursuit of "Profit" is not the only idea that the US is supposed to be built on. Even that old document that some people like to wave around without having read, the Declaration of Independence says we ought to have a shot at "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Note that profit is at best implied, and probably not really included in that trinity.

At the very least we have an ideal that we exist to be a democracy. That ideal has been supported with some pretty heinous economic arrangements involving slavery, child labor and exploitative labor practices. Unions may not be the best of all possible worlds, and they are certainly not the answer to every situation, but they have played an important part in sometimes making the social contract of our society slightly more fair and supportive of workers, not just those who have "ownership." Increasingly in our service-oriented society ownership means ownership over the productive capacities of other human beings.

Well, now that I've launched into an attempt to have a conversation rather than a rant on this topic, I realize that taking your inflammatory comments seriously and trying to engage in dialogue informed by history isn't likely to be productive with you.

I should just have made some smart-ass comment to underscore that your perspective is biased and moved on--so that's all for now. I'm off to play in the snow...

I don't have an issue with union employees in this case, but they need to fire thier reps. 

Looks like they will have plenty of time to picket soon.

I'm not really sure how unions work but, does the previous staff of the pickwick get any kind of pension (from either party) to land on after having the rug ripped out from under them?

Reap the whirlwind, Todd & Jaye.  This is what happens when you beat down a business owner for more & more no matter the scenario.  Seems oddly reminiscent of the mines back in the 80's.....take, take, take, and then when things turn for the worse, the union hacks dig in their heels and won't budge.

Anyhow, congratulations Local 99.  You just put dozens of jobs at risk because of your bloodthirsty, anti-business extortionist greed.  I hope you both lose your jobs as well for screwing over the Pickwick staff.

Chris, thanks for trying.  There's only so much you can do once these leeches get their selfish way.  Best of luck to you in the future.

C'mon, David......I know you can't be this dense.......

OK, we'll just suppose that the picket DID reduce business to the point where Chris had to dump the restaurant.  Who picketed?  That's right, Todd Erickson, the two (TWO!  Just TWO of them!) ungrateful waitresses and and number of legalized extortion supporters.  So, who caused the business to go under?  

Your analogy is akin to blaming a battered woman for "deserving it."  The man was trying to run a profitable business, and the union not only wouldn't give any concessions, but then picketed the business from which they wanted more money/benefits--subsequently driving away more business.  The union hacks stood up and proclaimed, "If you don't give us what we want, we're going to try to shut down your business."  How is that NOT extortion?  And now you're going to blame Chris Wisocki for the lack of business?  You think that he'd be selling if he was raking in the profits?  Wow.  A liberal's complete lack of business sense never ceases to amaze me.

David, you really don't have a grasp on reality.  But I'm about 98.9% certain that you're a public sector/non-profit employee, so making a profit has never been an issue for you.

OK, I'll admit I was wrong in insinuating that you blamed Wisocki.  You didn't.  My apologies.

However, you still fail to address the fact that the union did absolutely nothing to help the Pickwick remain in business and the employees on the job; on the contrary, they used the strong-armed extortionary tactic of picketing the business that provided employment for 70+ people.  The point that several other businesses have gone under in Duluth is moot.  We're talking about a business that has been around for years, and that business is going under because a union thug and his cronies decided they--yet again--wanted more.  Would the Pickwick have survived with some union concessions?  Now we'll never know.  What we do know is that Local 99 pulled the trigger on a picket that drove away business.  That is a fact that has been echoed by numerous people in this forum

If there were a coroner's report for the 'Wick, union extortion might not be the cause of death, but it'd definitely be a contributing factor.  And THAT is wrong.  A man had to sell or close his business because a handful of thugs and a couple ingrates decided they wanted more from a private business owner.  Sad day for Duluth, and the workers--because if you think that a buyer is going to bring back a problematic bunch of employees (especially the two waitresses who successfully damaged the business of the restaurant), you're so very, VERY mistaken.  Correct perception or not, I'd be willing to bet that only a handful of those union workers will be hired back......and not the union sympathizers.