Ramsey's Kitchen Nightmare couple from hell

[jimmy olsen]

Any couple named "Samy and Amy" need to have their throats slit with bicycle novelty license plates with their names on them from a themed amusement park.

Okay...now...I'll be going.

[DontSayBanana]

The open food/drink in the kitchen thing is a health code violation that is almost always ignored unless the inspector is in the building.  Employees have to eat in the restaurant, or in a specified break area.

That said they are a real couple of doucebags.

Funny thing, I couldn't find that in the Maricopa County health code anywhere.

[Caliga]

IIRC that's not her real name and they're both ex-cons.

[mongers]

IIRC that's not her real name and they're both ex-cons.

So really they started their own private prison, which masquerades as a restaurant.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Lot's of publicity though!

[crazy canuck]

Outside of the vague language in the "No Attitude" clause, the fine for not showing up on holidays and the non-compete clause the contract doesn't look all that outlandish.  Most of those are all things that I would expect most employers would say when they hired someone; the difference is most people know they aren't serious, where I think these bozos are.

I would be interested in Caliga's opinion.

Interesting.  Fining employees for not coming to work would be contrary to our minimum employment standards laws.  The non complete clause would be a non starter in this jurisdiction. Here the employer has the onus of proving why they need the protection of such a clause.  These people are servers making 8 bucks an hour.  I cant imagine how the non compete clause could possibly be defended (at least under Canadian law).  I am interesting in know how an employer would justify it in that jurisdiction.  I am also interested to know what rights an employer has to fine its employees in that jursidiction.  For example, what if the fine brings the employee's pay below minimum pay requirements? 

Lastly how would Cal know anything about this?  He doesnt do HR.

[Neil]

I'm not especially surprised.  Most of the worst business owners out there tend to be criminals.

[garbon]

I know someone who was on one of the episodes. His restaurant went under.

[mongers]

I know someone who was on one of the episodes. His restaurant went under.

Because of or in spite of?

[garbon]

I know someone who was on one of the episodes. His restaurant went under.

Because of or in spite of?

He blames Ramsey. In reality, I believe it was because they stuck with their failing business plan.

[mongers]

I know someone who was on one of the episodes. His restaurant went under.

Because of or in spite of?

He blames Ramsey. In reality, I believe it was because they stuck with their failing business plan.

Not a surprise as a lot of restaurants ultimately fail and burn a ton of cash in the process. 

[Ed Anger]

I like to watch those resturant shows ( and bar rescue) and just TSK TSK my way through them.

[sbr]

Interesting.  Fining employees for not coming to work would be contrary to our minimum employment standards laws.  The non complete clause would be a non starter in this jurisdiction. Here the employer has the onus of proving why they need the protection of such a clause.  These people are servers making 8 bucks an hour.  I cant imagine how the non compete clause could possibly be defended (at least under Canadian law).  I am interesting in know how an employer would justify it in that jurisdiction.  I am also interested to know what rights an employer has to fine its employees in that jursidiction.  For example, what if the fine brings the employee's pay below minimum pay requirements?

Yeah that is why I said outside of those 2 things.  I have no idea how they can legally do either of those.

Lastly how would Cal know anything about this?  He doesnt do HR.

Are you sure, that doesn't sound right.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Interesting.  Fining employees for not coming to work would be contrary to our minimum employment standards laws.  The non complete clause would be a non starter in this jurisdiction. Here the employer has the onus of proving why they need the protection of such a clause.  These people are servers making 8 bucks an hour.  I cant imagine how the non compete clause could possibly be defended (at least under Canadian law).  I am interesting in know how an employer would justify it in that jurisdiction.  I am also interested to know what rights an employer has to fine its employees in that jursidiction.  For example, what if the fine brings the employee's pay below minimum pay requirements? 

Lastly how would Cal know anything about this?  He doesnt do HR.

I've never heard of fining employees like that, and anything that takes you below minimum wage would be against Department of Labor regulations here in the United States as well. Some specialized contract employees (think athletes) can be fined. But they're in a very specialized subset of employees who have a true contract to perform certain services, has been approved by pretty powerful unions, and the employees in question make at minimum a few hundred thousand a year so there is no concern of hitting the minimum pay standards.

The way you can discipline employees who are low wage, and some companies do this, is unpaid suspensions. That basically denies you hours, and denies you your wage.

Also, we had a major class action lawsuit here where the employees of Starbucks sued because tips in the tip jar were split between management and the hourly employees. A court ruled that was a no go, and Starbucks had to pay a major settlement. For that reason I'm not sure it's actually a legally sound practice to declare all tips given to a server are property of the restaurant. You can certainly ban tipping in your restaurant entirely, which some restaurants have started doing. I've read a few articles recently about "fine dining" restaurants that are taking that approach as an experiment.

[DGuller]

I know someone who was on one of the episodes. His restaurant went under.

Because of or in spite of?

My guess is because it was a restaurant.  That's what they do.