USLAC writes in:
The organizers of the boycott have done an amazing job getting the word out, and we support their spirit of action. Workers are not getting the treatment they deserve. However, we do not think that at this point a boycott will be effective. We would like to work with the organizers of the boycott to exhaust all roads to change coming from the administration before doing an action like a boycott.
(Visited 5 times, 1 visits today)
So Rick didn’t care about the half of their sheet that was correct?Sounds like a real asshole.
So Rick didn’t care about the half of their sheet that was correct?Sounds like a real asshole.
So Rick didn’t care about the half of their sheet that was correct?
Sounds like a real asshole.
Most recent Anonymous, elaborate please?
Most recent Anonymous, elaborate please?
Most recent Anonymous, elaborate please?
i think the boycott lost most of its credibility anyway when Rick informed the people on the stairs that half the info on their sheet was wrong.
i think the boycott lost most of its credibility anyway when Rick informed the people on the stairs that half the info on their sheet was wrong.
i think the boycott lost most of its credibility anyway when Rick informed the people on the stairs that half the info on their sheet was wrong.
Look, if they are violating their contract as they are being accused of doing, and as I believe they are doing, this is an issue for lawyers to handle, not students.
Look, if they are violating their contract as they are being accused of doing, and as I believe they are doing, this is an issue for lawyers to handle, not students.
Look, if they are violating their contract as they are being accused of doing, and as I believe they are doing, this is an issue for lawyers to handle, not students.
Maybe USLAC just realizes there are more effective – and less extreme – measures that should come before a boycott? Like WSA resolutions and talking directly to administrators who decide these things?I hate to be the type who is complaining about complainers. That’s not effective, either. :( I’m not on campus, so I don’t know how desperate the situation is. Workers should get the same benefits they did under Aramark, and students should be able to eat a decent lunch and dinner everyday on the number of points they get for the semester. That’s the important stuff, right?
Maybe USLAC just realizes there are more effective – and less extreme – measures that should come before a boycott? Like WSA resolutions and talking directly to administrators who decide these things?I hate to be the type who is complaining about complainers. That’s not effective, either. :( I’m not on campus, so I don’t know how desperate the situation is. Workers should get the same benefits they did under Aramark, and students should be able to eat a decent lunch and dinner everyday on the number of points they get for the semester. That’s the important stuff, right?
Maybe USLAC just realizes there are more effective – and less extreme – measures that should come before a boycott? Like WSA resolutions and talking directly to administrators who decide these things?
I hate to be the type who is complaining about complainers. That’s not effective, either. :( I’m not on campus, so I don’t know how desperate the situation is. Workers should get the same benefits they did under Aramark, and students should be able to eat a decent lunch and dinner everyday on the number of points they get for the semester. That’s the important stuff, right?
I can’t believe people think boycotting will get BA to listen. They already have all of our money. We are the ones losing money by not going. If we continue to not go, maybe they’ll decide to lay off some people due to over-staffing. I don’t know much about labor laws and unions, but I do realize that not buying food that we already paid for in advance won’t change anything.
I can’t believe people think boycotting will get BA to listen. They already have all of our money. We are the ones losing money by not going. If we continue to not go, maybe they’ll decide to lay off some people due to over-staffing. I don’t know much about labor laws and unions, but I do realize that not buying food that we already paid for in advance won’t change anything.
I suggest that we bombard the next WSA meeting with our concerns about BA. We should then have the WSA draft a memo to Wesleyan and Bon appetit describing our concerns. And protests in front of the campus centre on Wyllys? Let’s do that.
I suggest that we bombard the next WSA meeting with our concerns about BA. We should then have the WSA draft a memo to Wesleyan and Bon appetit describing our concerns.
And protests in front of the campus centre on Wyllys? Let’s do that.
Anonymous #2, you are an idiot. They already have all of our money. Bon Appetit will not lose money from this. It’s simply sending a message, and a rather good one at that.
Anonymous #2, you are an idiot. They already have all of our money. Bon Appetit will not lose money from this. It’s simply sending a message, and a rather good one at that.
So if students don’t eat there because of outrageous prices, it is the students’ faults when workers get laid off? What a delightful point of view.If Bon Appétit tripled their prices, would you still go and buy food there? You wouldn’t want someone to get fired, so you’d better keep eating there no matter what the cost. Forget two bowls of fruit for 16 points. Why not 100 points? If you don’t buy it, they’ll fire Wendy.That practice is known as racketeering, and in most circles it is a gross breach of ethics, and possibly illegal. If that is what you are suggesting is going on, then that is even more of a reason to boycott.Luckily, that isn’t what’s going on. You have been duped into believing that BA has monopoly power. This is not true and their prices are not static. We are typical consumers and we don’t buy what is too expensive. Their prices will change based on changes in demand.
So if students don’t eat there because of outrageous prices, it is the students’ faults when workers get laid off? What a delightful point of view.
If Bon Appétit tripled their prices, would you still go and buy food there? You wouldn’t want someone to get fired, so you’d better keep eating there no matter what the cost. Forget two bowls of fruit for 16 points. Why not 100 points? If you don’t buy it, they’ll fire Wendy.
That practice is known as racketeering, and in most circles it is a gross breach of ethics, and possibly illegal. If that is what you are suggesting is going on, then that is even more of a reason to boycott.
Luckily, that isn’t what’s going on. You have been duped into believing that BA has monopoly power. This is not true and their prices are not static. We are typical consumers and we don’t buy what is too expensive. Their prices will change based on changes in demand.
If people stop eating there, and BA doesn’t stay in the black, they will be within their rights contract-wise to start firing workers.
If people stop eating there, and BA doesn’t stay in the black, they will be within their rights contract-wise to start firing workers.
What is the USLAC suggesting? Until the organizers of the boycott work with the USLAC to “exhaust all roads to change coming from the administration”, I am obligated to eat at Usdan? Well too bad.I just don’t want to pay that much, so I won’t go. If anyone shares that sentiment, they’ll probably do the same. I don’t call it an organized boycott, I call it econ 101.
What is the USLAC suggesting? Until the organizers of the boycott work with the USLAC to “exhaust all roads to change coming from the administration”, I am obligated to eat at Usdan? Well too bad.
I just don’t want to pay that much, so I won’t go. If anyone shares that sentiment, they’ll probably do the same. I don’t call it an organized boycott, I call it econ 101.