Rusty's workers and unions urge council to require worker-retention clause for Pier lease

Dozens of former Rusty's on the Pier employees and allied community groups urged the Santa Monica City Council on Nov. 18 to require worker-retention protections in any new lease for the pier restaurant space.

Several speakers — including former Rusty's employees who identified themselves at the microphone — said the company’s closure earlier this year left long-term workers without notice or the opportunity to return when an operator change was recommended. "We will keep doing it because we refuse to be ignored," said a former Rusty's worker who identified himself as Daquan. "I'm urging you to reject moving forward with this lease unless it requires a worker retention policy that would ensure laid off workers would be offered the first chance to return to the jobs they once held." Another former worker, Ishmael, said Rusty's "was more than just a job for me and for my coworkers. It was a family... Please don't move forward with this lease without a real opportunity for workers to return."

Unite Here Local 11 members and organizers said the pier process lacked accessible public notice and that the Pier Corporation failed to post its agenda for a prior Oct. 20 meeting; speakers called for the Peir (Pier) Corporation to "cure and correct" that omission and rescind actions taken without proper notice. Maria Espinosa, a 21-year Sanborn Hotel housekeeper and Unite Here member, said that if leases can be pushed through without notice and without worker-retention requirements, "it sends a message that workers who keep this city running are disposable."

What the speakers asked for: Community members asked the city to require a right-of-return/worker-retention clause for any new pier lease; several speakers said they would support a boycott or picketing if a new operator were allowed to re-open without such protections. Clergy and community organizers emphasized the Pier’s cultural role and urged the council to prioritize workers’ experience in any leasing decision.

City action and records: Speakers alleged procedural lapses at the Pier Corporation meeting on Oct. 20, including failure to post an agenda on the city website; they formally demanded that the Pier Corporation rescind actions taken on Oct. 20 and said they would pursue legal remedies if necessary. The council did not take an immediate, recorded vote on a lease at this meeting; several speakers and union representatives said they will continue outreach and legal steps to press their case.

Why it matters: The pier is a high-profile public-lands site that combines tourism, small-business activity and local jobs; workers and community organizations argued that any transfer of operations should preserve continuity for employees who served the pier for years. Council members and city staff heard the testimony during the public-comment period and did not adopt a lease action during the Nov. 18 session.