After 101 years, the doors close on L.A.'s Original Pantry Cafe
Downtown Los Angeles on Sunday lost another iconic eatery with the closure of the Original Pantry Cafe, which had been serving up hot coffee, burgers and breakfast platters since 1924.
News of the planned closure drew brisk business as patrons sought a farewell meal at the diner on the corner of 9th and South Figueroa streets.
The shuttering itself was bitter. Once doors were closed, the diner's remaining 25 workers gathered inside, received manila envelopes containing their final checks and, with support from their labor union, refused to leave.
"It's still open from their perspective," said Kurt Petersen, co-president of the Unite Here Local 11 labor union that Petersen said had represented workers at the diner for decades. "They told management they want them to change their mind."
The restaurant built its Los Angeles legacy not on elegant fare (it had a mediocre 3.7 rating on Yelp) but on its 24-hour service, making it a haven for night owls and early risers.
The diner had survived past threats. It dodged a freeway project in the 1950s, moving its location to make way for an off-ramp. Former Mayor Richard Riordan took over the restaurant in 1981 as part of a larger land deal.
'When I fell in love with the Pantry, I was at breakfast, drinking coffee, and I had a book I was reading,' Riordan was quoted as saying in The Times. 'I was very relaxed and the waiter came over and said, 'If you want to read, the library's at 5th and Hope.' I fell in love with it right then.'
But the isolation policies of the COVID-19 pandemic delivered a heavy blow, forcing the diner to limit its hours. Despite $1.7 million in federal loans (all but $500,000 of it forgiven) to preserve 82 jobs at the restaurant, workers said only about two dozen employees remained by Sunday's closure.
Los Angeles court records show a proposed class-action lawsuit was filed in April 2023 on behalf of Pantry workers alleging unpaid wages for overtime, rest and meal breaks. Two weeks later, Riordan died. The wage case remained in settlement talks as recently as February, filings show.
Ownership of the diner transferred to Riordan's trust, which said it sought to sell the asset to support its philanthropic endeavors. The union attempted to negotiate terms that would require any new owner to honor the existing contract. That didn't happen, and the labor union filed a grievance with the National Labor Relations Board.
Read more: The Original Pantry Cafe owner threatens to close historic diner over union contract dispute
Attorney Carl McKinzie, chief executive officer of the trust's company that operates the Pantry, declined comment on Sunday. He referred a reporter to a lengthy prepared statement given to media earlier in the week saying sales talks have been ongoing since last summer.
After the diner's doors closed Sunday, a representative of the trust arrived and attempted to distribute envelopes containing final paychecks. When workers would not step up to take them, she set them on a table.
"They left the envelope on the table and left out the back," said a table server who gave only his first name, Alex. He said he had been employed at the diner 24 years. "No thank you. She don't say nothing."
When workers attempted to stay behind, management called L.A. police, and officers eventually arrived to tell employees they faced trespass charges if they remained. The Pantry's workers left without incident, but Petersen from the union remained and was issued a citation, a union representative said.
Alex was not certain what might happen next week, other than that the union would have people out front with placards and signs. Union officials said they did not know if there was already a new owner in the wings.
The Pantry's online ordering service remained operational Sunday. A Times reporter was able to put in a takeout order for French toast first thing Wednesday.
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
35 minutes ago
- Axios
U.S. imports see largest plunge on record in April
U.S. goods imports plummeted in April, per data out Thursday, as President Trump's tariff policies rocked the global trade system. Why it matters: The decline is a sharp reversal of the front-loading effect the previous month, when firms raced to import stuff before the tariffs took hold. Zoom in: The monthly drop in imports is the largest on record, per the Commerce Department. Imports were still up from this time last year, however. The big picture: Trade with China fell to its lowest point since a historic pandemic shut the global economy. April imports from China, at $25.4 billion, were the lowest since March 2020 ($19.6 billion). And U.S. exports to the country also fell off a cliff to $8.2 billion — compared to $7.9 billion, as COVID-19 first hit the U.S. What they're saying: "It sure looks as though triple-digit tariff rates made a difference to trade flows, eh?" writes Carl Weinberg, chief economist at High Frequency Economics, in a note Thursday morning. The data is not really a sign of a weakening economy — unlike in the pandemic, companies stockpiled ahead of the tariff shock, and are now going to be drawing down elevated inventories of goods, he writes.
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Saia's tonnage turns negative after 22-month run
After 22 months of consecutive tonnage increases following Yellow Corp.'s shutdown, less-than-truckload carrier Saia reported a modest decline in volume during May. Saia (NASDAQ: SAIA) announced Thursday that tonnage per day dipped 0.4% year over year in May following a 4.4% increase in April (and a 12.8% increase in the first quarter). The May decline was the combination of a 3.2% drop in shipments, which was largely offset by a 3% increase in weight per shipment. The Johns Creek, Georgia-based carrier was very aggressive after Yellow's (OTC: YELLQ) exit, acquiring 28 of the defunct company's terminals and quickly onboarding its customers. (A filing with a federal bankruptcy court in Delaware last month showed it was acquiring three more service centers from Yellow's estate.) In the months that followed the acquisitions, Saia's volume growth significantly outpaced the rest of the industry even with a freight recession as the backdrop. But after nearly two years of increases, and further protraction of the downturn, the comps are increasingly more a two-year-stacked comparison, Saia's tonnage was up 9.4% in May following a 12% increase in April. The stacked comps peaked in February at plus-23.2%. Manufacturing activity, which generates nearly two-thirds of the LTL industry's freight, slumped again in May. The Manufacturing Purchasing Managers' Index remained slightly in contraction territory at 48.5 (a 50 reading is neutral). The new orders subindex, which is indicative of future near-term demand, remained in decline at 47.6. The Thursday update from Saia was its first since late April when it reported first-quarter results significantly worse than analysts were expecting, pushing shares 30% lower on the day. An unfavorable lane mix and costs from getting new terminals up to speed pushed its operating ratio (inverse of operating margin) 670 basis points higher y/y to 91.1% – its worst operating performance since the COVID-marred second quarter of doesn't provide any revenue-based metrics in its intraquarter updates. During the first quarter, yields were negative (down 5.1% y/y excluding fuel surcharges). Heavier shipment weights were a headwind to yield (revenue per hundredweight) in the quarter, but when adjusted for weight and length of haul, yields were likely still negative in the period. However, management said on the call that it hadn't changed its approach to pricing and noted that contractual rate increases averaged 6.1% in the period. The stickiness of those rate increases, however, remains to be seen. The company previously guided an 89% OR for the second quarter, which would be 570 bps worse y/y. Shares of SAIA were off 3.9% at 10:46 a.m. EDT on Thursday compared to the S&P 500, which was up 0.2%. More FreightWaves articles by Todd Maiden: XPO sees modest tonnage decline in May Old Dominion's May update in line with prior Q2 guide Transportation pricing grows faster than capacity again in May The post Saia's tonnage turns negative after 22-month run appeared first on FreightWaves. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - What globalists get wrong about free trade
Since at least the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, major media outlets have decried the impending end of globalization. These lamentations have only accelerated since the Trump administration declared April 2 'Liberation Day,' with our trading counterparties' unfair practices to be summarily addressed through increased and partially reciprocal duties (along with a minimum tariff level). To hear the media tell it, such tariffs are the death knell for a beneficial global trading order and will immiserate billions. But such valedictories for the end of globalization advance a straw-man fiction about what is now supposedly lost: namely, that President Trump's policies contravene an agreed framework whereby goods, capital and labor move across national boundaries in a mostly unencumbered manner. If one believes in the merits of free trade and cross-border capital flows, it is essential not to confuse the ideal with the real. In truth, there have always been (often significant) friction and costs associated with such movements. Today's so-called free trade regime recalls Western support for Soviet communism, snarling 'real communism has never been tried' in defense of its myriad failures. Love it or hate it, what exists today is hardly real free trade. If what we have today isn't it, what does free trade closer to its Platonic ideal look like? This notion, that trade conditions are rarely wholly free or unfree, also confuses the media. The reality is that trading conditions sit uneasily along a continuum, and relatively free trade only occurs under certain conditions. These include (among others): Mutually agreed-upon rules for international commerce, consistently applied or at least generally observed, allowing for relatively open and reciprocal market access; Exemptions for strategic industries, a form of insurance for nations, insulating them from being caught short in a subsequent conflict with trading partners; Reliable cross-border supply chains, allowing for the disaggregation of production into its constituent parts (trading resource control for cost efficiency) and An ideologically unipolar historical moment, or a multi-polar world in which international trade largely occurs within the poles. These and other trade-friendly conditions were largely obtained in the decades leading up to the First World War, and in the 20 or so years following the end of the Cold War. While a world war is an obvious culprit ending an earlier era of globalization, what explains its current travails? A rules-based trading order can withstand certain restrictions (tariffs, regulations, quotas) — in fact, protecting strategic sectors demands some of them. But excessive use, along with outright cheating — subsidies, intellectual property theft and currency manipulation, as in the case of China — gives rise to a prisoner's dilemma with suboptimal outcomes. Similarly, the extended supply chains that proliferated over the last 30 years assumed the only national interest that mattered was economic advancement. Consider the terms made fashionable over the last three decades: 'a borderless world,' 'global citizens,' 'the end of history' and 'soft power.' The disaggregation of business models previously housed under a single corporate roof never anticipated revisionist challenges to Pax Americana, such as the retrograde gunboat diplomacy of China's Belt and Road Initiative, much less the rise of transnational terrorist organizations disrupting commerce and producing failed states. Moreover, the unipolar moment has ended. As China, under the rule of the Communist Party, displaced the Soviet Union as our primary geopolitical adversary, its admission to the World Trade Organization in 2001 conferred upon it a degree of economic leverage over the United States that Joseph Stalin could only have dreamed of. The return of history, with not only China but Russia, Turkey and others asserting spheres of influence and advancing parochial interests while embedded within a global economic system and multilateral institutions, further vitiates unfettered trade and capital movements. Failing to understand that globalization — the mutually beneficial interdependence and integration among nations, entailing a largely unrestricted flow of goods, capital, information and people — only flourishes under certain conditions, is only half of what the media and establishment elites get wrong. The other is the fetishization of globalism as an ideology. One can support globalization without being a globalist. Free trade and capital flows do not themselves comprise a belief system, but are rather a means to an end: actualizing individuals' aspirations and the nations that represent them. Free trade is the handmaiden of liberty, not vice versa. Reifying trade at the expense of other liberal values risks perverse outcomes; offshoring a nation's pharmaceutical production capacity to potentially belligerent nations is but one example. Another danger in globalism as an ideology is that of falling prey to historical determinism. Seeing deepening global integration as inevitable presents several risks. Believing it impervious threatens underinvestment in its sustenance (see the collapse of the WTO's Doha Round); competing objectives such as national self-determination and defense of borders may also be subordinated to globalism's tenets, destabilizing the very nations seeking to benefit from globalization. The proposed Trump tariff regime is not the full-throated attack on a functioning trading order critics make it out to be. To acknowledge this is not to defend blindly the administration's policies. Tariffs have their place as leverage against trading counterparties with onerous trade restrictions of their own. They are also useful to support strategic sectors in an increasingly dangerous world. What tariffs won't do is revive a rust-belt economy, which isn't coming back. Comparative advantage, alas, remains undefeated. Nor should tariffs be sold to the public as a governmental revenue-generator while incumbent income, sales and other tax regimes remain firmly in place. Globalization improves lives and should be promoted. Free trade and capital movements have consistently shown themselves, when the requisite conditions are present, to be mutually beneficial. How these benefits are distributed and whether the unchecked movement of people across borders is similarly beneficial are more complex matters. But the promotion of globalism as an inviolate creed, either for its own sake or as a counterpoint to 'America First' policies, fails to appreciate that globalization cannot be summoned by magical thinking and that it is the servant of liberty, not its master. Richard J. Shinder is the founder and managing partner of Theatine Partners, a financial consultancy. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
