Print | Email | Share

Restaurant workers protest management abuses

Employees of the NYC Chinese restaurant chain Wu Liang Ye staged a protest yesterday against management abuses including paying less than minimum wage, appropriating employees' tips, and taking vengeful actions against workers struggling for their rights.

About a dozen employees stood outside the Wu Liang Ye branch at Lexington Avenue and 39th Street during lunchtime, protesting loudly and distributing fliers, drawing the attention of many patrons and passersby, who stopped to talk with the protesters. When this reporter sought out the management to ask about their reactions, he was hassled and driven away.

Workers from the 318 Restaurant Workers Union and the Chinese Staff and Workers' Association joined the protesters yesterday, holding placards and accusing the management of violating labor laws, as well and singling out and retaliating against workers who attempted to fight for their rights. Patrons eating lunch in the restaurant looked out the window in shock and confusion, and the restaurant staff immediately pulled down the blinds to keep the diners from being disturbed.

However, the loud cries of the protestors caused many passersby to stop and watch, and some even asked for flyers to learn more about the situation.

Wu Liang Ye, one of NYC's best-known Chinese restaurants, has been in operation since 1993 and currently has three locations on 39th, 48th, and 86th Streets, bringing in roughly $6 million in revenue every year, according to Cai Fengjun, secretary of the 318 Restaurant Workers' Union. However, the three restaurants have continually violated labor laws, giving workers a base pay of $1.1 less than minimum wage and deducting 10 percent off all tips paid by credit card, Cai said. When twenty-five Wu Liang Ye employees banded together to sue the establishment, the owner retaliated against them, firing them one by one. The employees are now appealing to the National Labor Relations Board, according to Cai.

Wei Min, who had worked at Wu Liang Ye for 12 years before he was fired in 2007, had read reports of the Saigon Grill workers' protest and planned to stage a similar action. However, the protest was suppressed immediately, and the management targeted Wei, who had worked there the longest, firing him on a flimsy pretense.

The twenty-five workers who sued were mainly from the 39th St. and 86th St. branches, and have since then been fired, said Cao Jinming, who still works at the restaurant. Only he and one other server still remain, he said, and they have been discriminated against in various ways. For example, they have had their work hours cut from 60 to 30 hours per week and their meal times changed arbitrarily, even having lunch and dinner breaks crammed together at 3:00 and then 5:00. The management constantly harasses and insults them, Cao said, in hopes that they will leave of their own volition.

Weng Zhenjian, who worked as a deliveryman for Wu Liang Ye's 86th St. branch, was among the workers who brought the lawsuit. He was fired last year, as well as many other deliverymen who tried to speak out, Weng said. One technique the management used to get rid of workers was to require them to show work permit numbers in order to report taxes, forcing those without identification to leave. Deliverymen are paid on average only $750 a month and rely on tips as their main source of income, losing 10 percent of the tip when customers pay with credit card, Weng said.

The restaurant is run by Jian Li and Susan Li, according to the protesters' literature. This reporter entered the restaurant shortly afterward to inquire about the management's response to the situation, but the employees at the front counter claimed that the managers were not in, and refused to try to contact them. One male staff member, who refused to reveal his identity, came forward and said there had been no response. Afterwards some of the protesters identified him as a manager named John.

The reporter insisted that he simply wanted to speak with the management, so as to hear all sides of the story, but met with verbal abuse and threats to call the police.

 

In news section of Edition 384 6 August 2009

Displaying 1-0 of 0   Prev Next