Portland OR Bakery fires employees for refusing service to black woman

[Derec]

I dunno. I see the bigger issue here being that after they already turned away two customers, they still hadn't locked the door. It isn't "rank" racism to want to avoid bad headlines.

It's rank racism to fire two employees because they did not serve a black customer after alredy turning away two white customers. Also, the owners are steeped in racial self-hatred.

In one Facebook post, the bakery's co-owner wrote, "We are doing business in a gentrified neighborhood in a racist city within a racist state of a racist country.”

It's kinda stupid, but most people are also kinda stupid. After all, we live in a world where some idiots watch FOX and believe that a kid being in the wrong neighborhood, or a driver being high on weed, or shutting a garage door, or just plain running in fear for their life is a good excuse to murder someone so long as they are black.

I see you are misrepresenting some cases here.

I mean, if some people can be that shitty and ignorant, it would be unfair to assume that people trying to fight against that were incapable of being just as shitty and ignorant in different ways, especially since a lack of exposure and real world experience is the norm in both communities.

These owners are not fighting racism, they are engaging in it, out of overabundance of white guilt. '

I hope the employees sue them and they go out of business. Vegan and gluten free - that should be listed as a crime against humanity in the first place!

 

[Derec]

I guess you could call this reverse racism, but I really don't see being "too nice" to black people being a growing threat to society. It's probably not fair 2 people lost their jobs ( I don't know all the facts)

Treating people differently because of their race is a hallmark of racism. It should not be defended, even if the perpetrators of this racism believe they are doing it for the right reasons.

but I don't see this spreading like a virus in white culture.

I can see it spreading among the so-called "progressives".

If anything, it's a misappropriated reaction to the actual racism that occurs.

Fighting perceived racism with even more racism is not really a productive approach.

 

[laughing dog]

If the employees have been told not to lock the doors until all the customers are out, then the employees again did nothing wrong. They did turn off the open sign.

Since we don't know what the employees were told, we have no idea if they were following directions or not. In my experience, I find it unusual that they either did not lock the doors or serve the people who came in a little late while they were dealing with the customers who already there.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Let me see if I have this correct
3 people enter the store after 9pm and are turned away, 2 white and 1 black.
The staff are sacking for racism yet turned away black and white people.
The staff are gloriously colour blind.

All staff should leave that bakery are the owners are stupid. Looks like an unfair dismissal case to me.

Unless there's more to the story we aren't seeing it's obvious appeasement.

 

[Emily Lake]

I found this event particularly interesting for a handful of reasons.

• Racial tension
• Worker's rights
• Mob mentality and court of public opinion
• Impact of perception on peoples' livelihood irrelevant of fact

All of those are things that come into competition in this event, and many of them are ones that are very polarizing for a lot of people.

It might also be worth noting that only 8% of the population in Portland is black (and that actually includes a fair number of African immigrants). The pacific northwest is a remarkably pale part of the country, although I suspect that North Dakota might be worse. So the fact that the few other patrons in the bakery were all white doesn't indicate any sort of racism, so much as it reflects the demographic make-up of the region, and might be worth considering.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

All of those are things that come into competition in this event, and many of them are ones that are very polarizing for a lot of people.

Women starring as the main protagonist in Star Wars is very polarizing for a lot of people.

It might also be worth noting that only 8% of the population in Portland is black (and that actually includes a fair number of African immigrants). The pacific northwest is a remarkably pale part of the country, although I suspect that North Dakota might be worse. So the fact that the few other patrons in the bakery were all white doesn't indicate any sort of racism, so much as it reflects the demographic make-up of the region, and might be worth considering.

I don't think many are suggesting this was race based or at least the servers denied services due to race.

Do we know they were fired over race or because they didn't serve three customers?

From the article:

In one statement, "Back To Eden Bakery" says that according to its own surveillance video, a black woman named "Lillian", who is well known in the area as a "professional equity activist", entered at 9:06 p.m., after the bakery's closing time. Employees had also turned off the "Open" sign, but several customers (all white) who had already ordered were still inside.

Could see the confusion there, but also why the door wasn't locked.

 

[Emily Lake]

Women starring as the main protagonist in Star Wars is very polarizing for a lot of people.

Fair point, a lot of people are very easily polarized.

I don't think many are suggesting this was race based or at least the servers denied services due to race.

Do we know they were fired over race or because they didn't serve three customers?

By all accounts, they were fired because one of the three customers that they denied service to accused them of being racists... and the owner of the bakery decided that the risk of the public perceiving the bakery as being racist outweighed any consideration of whether the employees behaved in an inappropriate manner in any way at all.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

By all accounts, they were fired because one of the three customers that they denied service to accused them of being racists... and the owner of the bakery decided that the risk of the public perceiving the bakery as being racist outweighed any consideration of whether the employees behaved in an inappropriate manner in any way at all.

Yup, that's what happens to at-will employees in a capitalist system. Likewise, the woman who gave Trump the finger was fired but there wasn't even any direct perception issue at all. Perhaps instead it was indirect, like if the corporation continued to keep her on as an employee, it would be like they condoned it. Or they had to show utmost respect to Trump's Authoritay by firing her. Going back to the recent lady's case, though, it's a little different because the employees were in work at the time. Could they have anticipated what might happen and proactively told the lady they were closed and that others before her were also turned down? Yes, but they were probably busy...you know worker bees. The owner and/or manager ought to have those kinds of thoughts and responsibilities, not employees. Because the manager wasn't present to deal with public perception, the little guy gets shafted. This wouldn't happen in a system where the workers owns the means of production or if it were a democratic cooperative, any dissenters could at least leave with differences and their piece of the pie.

 

[Derec]

By all accounts, they were fired because one of the three customers that they denied service to accused them of being racists... and the owner of the bakery decided that the risk of the public perceiving the bakery as being racist outweighed any consideration of whether the employees behaved in an inappropriate manner in any way at all.

There was only one person who blamed "racism" on not being served after hours - the Lilian woman - and she seems to be a professional race card player. She is demanding special treatment because of her skin color and the ownership of the bakery caved to that, throwing its own employees under the bus.

 

[Derec]

Since we don't know what the employees were told, we have no idea if they were following directions or not.

Even the bakery owners admitted the employees did nothing wrong. You'd think they'd mention it in their defense of the sacking. Besides, according to The Stranger, leaving doors unlocked while customers are on premises is the law.

In my experience, I find it unusual that they either did not lock the doors or serve the people who came in a little late while they were dealing with the customers who already there.

The first apparently could not be done as per health regulations, and if you did the second, you may never get to leave.
In any case, the bakery was wrong to demand their employees treat black customers differently to avoid professional race hustlers race hustling.

 

[bilby]

By all accounts, they were fired because one of the three customers that they denied service to accused them of being racists... and the owner of the bakery decided that the risk of the public perceiving the bakery as being racist outweighed any consideration of whether the employees behaved in an inappropriate manner in any way at all.

There was only one person who blamed "racism" on not being served after hours - the Lilian woman - and she seems to be a professional race card player. She is demanding special treatment because of her skin color and the ownership of the bakery caved to that, throwing its own employees under the bus.

It couldn't happen in a place with decent laws to protect employees from wrongful dismissal.

I bet these were not the only employees in the USA who were fired that day because an employer decided that a customer complaint (however trivial or unreasonable) was best dealt with by sacking the staff involved without a second thought.

This particular instance is getting a lot of publicity because it's supposedly about race. But frankly, I cannot understand why any employee chooses 'at will' employment over the sensible alternative of bloody revolution. It is a truly inhumane institution.

 

[laughing dog]

Since we don't know what the employees were told, we have no idea if they were following directions or not.

Even the bakery owners admitted the employees did nothing wrong. You'd think they'd mention it in their defense of the sacking. Besides, according to The Stranger, leaving doors unlocked while customers are on premises is the law.

In my experience, I find it unusual that they either did not lock the doors or serve the people who came in a little late while they were dealing with the customers who already there.

The first apparently could not be done as per health regulations, and if you did the second, you may never get to leave.
In any case, the bakery was wrong to demand their employees treat black customers differently to avoid professional race hustlers race hustling.

We don't know if the other turned away customers complained or not. If they did, then you have a point. Otherwise, you don't.

 

[bleubird]

I work retail.As a matter of practice,lock the f$%king door a few minutes before close.Screw the last minute customer! I turn off the open sign and some of the lights 5 minutes before close. This is not about race. It is about poor store training by the owners.

 

[fast]

I work retail.As a matter of practice,lock the f$%king door a few minutes before close.Screw the last minute customer! I turn off the open sign and some of the lights 5 minutes before close. This is not about race. It is about poor store training by the owners.

How about exceed the customers expectations and demand that employees keep the door unlocked to facilitate the wants and needs of customers for an additional 300 seconds. Cut the sign off--that'll be fine, but go the extra very short mile. Yeah, it's a real pain in the ass when last minute customers interrupt preclosing rituals; I get that, but if you're gonna train workers, instilling some work ethic is a good thing.

 

[bilby]

I work retail.As a matter of practice,lock the f$%king door a few minutes before close.Screw the last minute customer! I turn off the open sign and some of the lights 5 minutes before close. This is not about race. It is about poor store training by the owners.

How about exceed the customers expectations and demand that employees keep the door unlocked to facilitate the wants and needs of customers for an additional 300 seconds. Cut the sign off--that'll be fine, but go the extra very short mile. Yeah, it's a real pain in the ass when last minute customers interrupt preclosing rituals; I get that, but if you're gonna train workers, instilling some work ethic is a good thing.

If you extend your closing time by 5 minutes to accommodate those latecomers, then what happens to the customer who shows up at the 6 minute mark, while those latecomers are in the store? If you want staff to serve customers 24/7, which is the ultimate end result of this, or even just to work an extra X minutes, where X is however long it takes to get the last customer out and lock the door - then you have to pay for staff to cover that extra time.

Fuck 'work ethic'; People should never be expected to give extra time to the boss free of charge. The boss is buying their labour, and he should damn well pay for it. With appropriate penalty rates for any overtime. If my shift finishes at 6pm, I am not still working at 18:00:01 unless I am getting very well paid to do so, as compensation for the inconvenience to my life that finishing late entails.

'Work ethic' is just code for 'Workers have to put up with any crap their bosses feel like piling onto them'. Screw that for a game of soldiers. You run a bakery, and don't let your workers just take bread, pastries and cakes without paying you for them? Then don't expect your workforce to give out free minutes of their time without you paying for them.

 

[Axulus]

I work retail.As a matter of practice,lock the f$%king door a few minutes before close.Screw the last minute customer! I turn off the open sign and some of the lights 5 minutes before close. This is not about race. It is about poor store training by the owners.

How about exceed the customers expectations and demand that employees keep the door unlocked to facilitate the wants and needs of customers for an additional 300 seconds. Cut the sign off--that'll be fine, but go the extra very short mile. Yeah, it's a real pain in the ass when last minute customers interrupt preclosing rituals; I get that, but if you're gonna train workers, instilling some work ethic is a good thing.

If you extend your closing time by 5 minutes to accommodate those latecomers, then what happens to the customer who shows up at the 6 minute mark, while those latecomers are in the store? If you want staff to serve customers 24/7, which is the ultimate end result of this, or even just to work an extra X minutes, where X is however long it takes to get the last customer out and lock the door - then you have to pay for staff to cover that extra time.

Fuck 'work ethic'; People should never be expected to give extra time to the boss free of charge. The boss is buying their labour, and he should damn well pay for it. With appropriate penalty rates for any overtime. If my shift finishes at 6pm, I am not still working at 18:00:01 unless I am getting very well paid to do so, as compensation for the inconvenience to my life that finishing late entails.

'Work ethic' is just code for 'Workers have to put up with any crap their bosses feel like piling onto them'. Screw that for a game of soldiers. You run a bakery, and don't let your workers just take bread, pastries and cakes without paying you for them? Then don't expect your workforce to give out free minutes of their time without you paying for them.

Where are you getting this bizzare notion that the workers won't get paid extra for staying a few minutes late?

At my shop, we schedule two workers to stay 30 minutes after close. No one who enters the shop after the official close time is to be refused service. Doors locked after all customers are out of the shop.

They get paid based on when they clock out. And if staying an extra 5-10 minutes late is a massive inconvenience when the demand is there, then it is best to find a job somewhere else with a strict 9-5 type schedule.

And it is rarely busy at closing time. It would be a dream to be so busy that you never had the opportunity to close.

 

[Axulus]

By all accounts, they were fired because one of the three customers that they denied service to accused them of being racists... and the owner of the bakery decided that the risk of the public perceiving the bakery as being racist outweighed any consideration of whether the employees behaved in an inappropriate manner in any way at all.

There was only one person who blamed "racism" on not being served after hours - the Lilian woman - and she seems to be a professional race card player. She is demanding special treatment because of her skin color and the ownership of the bakery caved to that, throwing its own employees under the bus.

It couldn't happen in a place with decent laws to protect employees from wrongful dismissal.

I bet these were not the only employees in the USA who were fired that day because an employer decided that a customer complaint (however trivial or unreasonable) was best dealt with by sacking the staff involved without a second thought.

This particular instance is getting a lot of publicity because it's supposedly about race. But frankly, I cannot understand why any employee chooses 'at will' employment over the sensible alternative of bloody revolution. It is a truly inhumane institution.

I can't imagine how it could possibly be good for a worker to work at a place where the owner doesn't want them and the owner be forced to keep them. It would be bad for the worker in the long run. Best to cut ties with bad owners and move on to greener pastures.

Also, what owner would ever take a chance on someone they were a little unsure about if they couldn't let them go at will?

 

[bilby]

It couldn't happen in a place with decent laws to protect employees from wrongful dismissal.

I bet these were not the only employees in the USA who were fired that day because an employer decided that a customer complaint (however trivial or unreasonable) was best dealt with by sacking the staff involved without a second thought.

This particular instance is getting a lot of publicity because it's supposedly about race. But frankly, I cannot understand why any employee chooses 'at will' employment over the sensible alternative of bloody revolution. It is a truly inhumane institution.

I can't imagine how it could possibly be good for a worker to work at a place where the owner doesn't want them and the owner be forced to keep them. It would be bad for the worker in the long run. Best to cut ties with bad owners and move on to greener pastures.

Your lack of imagination is noted. But the reality is that most workers are in it for money, not fun, and don't expect to be their boss's friend, just his employee. It is FAR better to work at a place where the boss doesn't want you than not to have work at all.

Also, what owner would ever take a chance on someone they were a little unsure about if they couldn't let them go at will?

Well, all of the ones in the EU and Australasia, for a start.

At will employment is a bizarre aberration, found only in the USA out of all of the developed world. That you cannot imagine how life could be without it just shows that you need to travel more.

 

[Axulus]

Your lack of imagination is noted. But the reality is that most workers are in it for money, not fun, and don't expect to be their boss's friend, just his employee. It is FAR better to work at a place where the boss doesn't want you than not to have work at all.

Hmm, maybe that is part of the problem in your worldview. The situation in the countries you describe has resulted in an outcome where people's only option is a boss that must keep them employed via force of government despite not wanting them or no work at all.

Well, all of the ones in the EU and Australasia, for a start.

Those high unemployment rates in EU are nothing to brag about. Also, at will employment in Australia essentially exists except for a a required few week notice period. That really isn't all that different. Employers are generally not forced to keep an employee they don't want long term.

At will employment is a bizarre aberration, found only in the USA out of all of the developed world. That you cannot imagine how life could be without it just shows that you need to travel more.

It is the only situation that makes rational sense. An offer to hire an employee isn't and shouldn't be a lifetime offer or any other absurd long-term period.

 

[bilby]

Hmm, maybe that is part of the problem in your worldview. The situation in the countries you describe has resulted in an outcome where people's only option is a boss that must keep them employed via force of government despite not wanting them or no work at all.




Those high unemployment rates in EU are nothing to brag about. Also, at will employment in Australia essentially exists except for a a required few week notice period. That really isn't all that different. Employers are generally not forced to keep an employee they don't want long term.

At will employment is a bizarre aberration, found only in the USA out of all of the developed world. That you cannot imagine how life could be without it just shows that you need to travel more.

It is the only situation that makes rational sense. An offer to hire an employee isn't and shouldn't be a lifetime offer or any other absurd long-term period.

I have lived and worked in Australia for over twenty years, and I can assure you that 'At will' employment most certainly does not 'essentially exist' here, despite the increasing and widely opposed 'casualisation' of the workforce.

If my employer wants to get rid of me, he either has to pay me a large redundancy payment (and is not allowed to replace me with a new hire); or has to go through a series of formal warnings (both written and verbal) that demonstrate my failure to perform adequately or safely.

Should he not be able to justify those warnings to a tribunal, he can be made to compensate me financially, or to re-hire me.