Ramsey's Kitchen Nightmare couple from hell

[garbon]

I considered posting that but I ain't as childish as dg.

[DontSayBanana]

Sounds like this particular iteration of the contract is about two months old, and has since been updated to remove the tip-grabbing and non-compete clauses.

Not sure about the non-compete, but the tip-grabbing was blatantly illegal: http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs15.pdf

Even when tips are pooled, employees who don't customarily pick up tips (re: management) can't be part of the pool.  Mario Batali settled a massive lawsuit last year for doing exactly that: http://blogs.findlaw.com/celebrity_justice/2012/03/mario-batali-settles-wage-lawsuit-for-525m.html

[derspiess]

Even when tips are pooled, employees who don't customarily pick up tips (re: management) can't be part of the pool.  Mario Batali settled a massive lawsuit last year for doing exactly that: http://blogs.findlaw.com/celebrity_justice/2012/03/mario-batali-settles-wage-lawsuit-for-525m.html

There is a local high-end chain here under investigation for that as well.  One detail from the news story that I found interesting was that the servers make an average of $65K a year after tips.  Not too shabby for waiting tables in an area like this.

[crazy canuck]

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.

Interesting.  Here that is not permitted unless there is express language in the contract of employment.  Ironically for Yi, such language is often found in collective bargaining agreements.  But since most non union employees do not have written contracts this would be a no no.

There is no real way of stopping it.  Very few workers here have contracts, and nothing that guarantees the number of hours they will work.  If there is no place on the schedule for them what are they going to do?

All employees have contracts of employment.  It is just that very few non union employees are have a written contract.  The situation you are describing is one in which an implied term of a contract is that the employee will work variable hours or be on call.  Your point holds for that type of contract.  But where the employee normally works full time and then is disciplined by suspending without pay that would be an impermissable unilateral change to the contract unless there was some express written contractual language that gave the employer the right - at least here.

[The Minsky Moment]

A non-compete for $8/hr wait staff?  I don't think so.

These terms do seem designed to turn away all except the most desperately unemployable or illiterate.

[OttoVonBismarck]

All employees have contracts of employment.  It is just that very few non union employees are have a written contract.  The situation you are describing is one in which an implied term of a contract is that the employee will work variable hours or be on call.  Your point holds for that type of contract.  But where the employee normally works full time and then is disciplined by suspending without pay that would be an impermissable unilateral change to the contract unless there was some express written contractual language that gave the employer the right - at least here.

Yeah, for low wage restaurant employees they will typically be told "we'll schedule you as many hours as we can fit you in." Which is vague enough to mean anywhere from 8 hours a week to 50. Generally managers will use the best employees more often, sometimes even getting them overtime. Then more marginal employees get less hours, and there are usually some employees who will make it known they only want say, 20 hours a week because they are students or housewives or something only looking for a part time job.

If you get 40 hours one week and 10 hours the next there isn't any ordinary recourse, if you could show that the management was always giving say, white employees 40 hours a week and black employees 10 hours a week then that would probably open you up to claims under various Federal laws.

I'm not sure for employees who are "understood" to be full time if we have a situation like you mention here, where it is implied you have to make it expressly known if they can be suspended without pay. At some of the low wage places I mentioned, basically it's understood you have no guaranteed hours and your hours will fluctuate every single week. So you would not even formally need to "suspend" anyone, you'd just say "we didn't schedule you this week." People I know that work places where they do suspensions, the suspension policy is detailed in the employee handbook/code of conduct etc.

I also know people who work in the natural gas drilling industry and depending on amount of drilling activity sometimes they get less than 40 hours per week even though their normal is 40 hours per week. This actually makes them eligible for "low earnings" unemployment, which is when government subsidizes your pay because it has dropped below the amount of money you would normally make. I know people who are on low earnings for months every year.

[mongers]

A non-compete for $8/hr wait staff?  I don't think so.

These terms do seem designed to turn away all except the most desperately unemployable or illiterate.

But this way it ensure potential staff won't out-skill the owners, well not by too much.

[garbon]

All employees have contracts of employment.  It is just that very few non union employees are have a written contract.  The situation you are describing is one in which an implied term of a contract is that the employee will work variable hours or be on call.  Your point holds for that type of contract.  But where the employee normally works full time and then is disciplined by suspending without pay that would be an impermissable unilateral change to the contract unless there was some express written contractual language that gave the employer the right - at least here.

Yeah, for low wage restaurant employees they will typically be told "we'll schedule you as many hours as we can fit you in." Which is vague enough to mean anywhere from 8 hours a week to 50. Generally managers will use the best employees more often, sometimes even getting them overtime. Then more marginal employees get less hours, and there are usually some employees who will make it known they only want say, 20 hours a week because they are students or housewives or something only looking for a part time job.

If you get 40 hours one week and 10 hours the next there isn't any ordinary recourse, if you could show that the management was always giving say, white employees 40 hours a week and black employees 10 hours a week then that would probably open you up to claims under various Federal laws.

I'm not sure for employees who are "understood" to be full time if we have a situation like you mention here, where it is implied you have to make it expressly known if they can be suspended without pay. At some of the low wage places I mentioned, basically it's understood you have no guaranteed hours and your hours will fluctuate every single week. So you would not even formally need to "suspend" anyone, you'd just say "we didn't schedule you this week." People I know that work places where they do suspensions, the suspension policy is detailed in the employee handbook/code of conduct etc.

I also know people who work in the natural gas drilling industry and depending on amount of drilling activity sometimes they get less than 40 hours per week even though their normal is 40 hours per week. This actually makes them eligible for "low earnings" unemployment, which is when government subsidizes your pay because it has dropped below the amount of money you would normally make. I know people who are on low earnings for months every year.

*waits for CC to mention how barbaric the US is*

[mongers]

*waits for CC to mention how barbaric the US is*

It's implied in most things he and I post.   

[crazy canuck]

*waits for CC to mention how barbaric the US is*

No need.  In threads like this it is painfully obvious.  Even you recognized it.

[MadImmortalMan]

That guy was a millionaire ballin' it in Vegas. Why the fuck did he give that up for this? Amy said he spent like a million five to "make her dream come true". Give me 1.5 mil and I guarantee you get a ten percent ROI every year, minimum. What is this crap. They are just throwing money down the toilet.

[crazy canuck]

That guy was a millionaire ballin' it in Vegas. Why the fuck did he give that up for this? Amy said he spent like a million five to "make her dream come true". Give me 1.5 mil and I guarantee you get a ten percent ROI every year, minimum. What is this crap. They are just throwing money down the toilet.

I am not sure Amy is entirely credible.

[garbon]

*waits for CC to mention how barbaric the US is*

No need.  In threads like this it is painfully obvious.  Even you recognized it.

Nah, it is just your MO. I don't think a nightmare couple who perpetually run businesses into the ground are a sign of a problem. That's capitalism for you.

[crazy canuck]

*waits for CC to mention how barbaric the US is*

No need.  In threads like this it is painfully obvious.  Even you recognized it.

Nah, it is just your MO. I don't think a nightmare couple who perpetually run businesses into the ground are a sign of a problem. That's capitalism for you.

Ok, did you hire Grumbler's reader.  My posts have been about the contract and the ensuing discussion about US labour laws.

[garbon]

*waits for CC to mention how barbaric the US is*

No need.  In threads like this it is painfully obvious.  Even you recognized it.

Nah, it is just your MO. I don't think a nightmare couple who perpetually run businesses into the ground are a sign of a problem. That's capitalism for you.

Ok, did you hire Grumbler's reader.  My posts have been about the contract and the ensuing discussion about US labour laws.

Oh, I don't think those are barbaric either.