I thought we'd discussed this here, but I couldn't find a thread anywhere.
To explain, Gordon Ramsey did a show - wait, tried to do a show - on a Scotsdale, Arizona, restaurant. Unfortunately, the owners were insane, and, for the first time ever, Gordon walked out and left them to it. You can watch the whole episode below, but honestly, the first five minutes kind of tells you enough.
Ramsey's Kitchen w/ Amy's Bakery (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XjgHEctcy0)
After, there was a massive meltdown on Facebook, that was precipitated by the folks on Reddit.
Buzzfeed article (http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/this-is-the-most-epic-brand-meltdown-on-facebook-ever)
And finally, they had a new grand opening. With it, came a new contract for their employees. Numbers 8-11 really cracked me up.
http://amradaronline.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/amyskitchencontract.pdf (http://amradaronline.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/amyskitchencontract.pdf)
"Any type of attitude will result in immediate termination." - even a positive attitude? They want indifferent workers? :P
"At no point is any food or open beverage allowed in the kitchen." - I guess they mean food that the employees eat, but if you were to take it literally ...
Mandatory weekend/holiday work ... ok, there's jobs that require that. But $250.- penalty for a no show? WTF?
All tips are owned by the restaurant, not the waiting staff. How nice. And I guess $8/hour is not very good?
A one year non-competition clause on what looks like a rather shitty job? Yeah, right.
So, you're not allowed to talk during work, you have to show up on time and leave a.s.a.p. after your shift, you can't bring your own food (how long are shifts? where do they get food?) or any bags/purses, and the employers reserve the right to search anything you bring?
You'd have to be REALLY desperate to sign such a wage slave contract. I'm pretty sure such employment is good for shareholder value, though. :)
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.
Quote from: sbr on September 08, 2013, 12:25:26 AM
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.
Yeah, I understand that, but the contract doesn't quite specify that.
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.
You get the employees you deserve. Fines? No Compete? For being a server? Good luck having the shittiest service around.
Quote from: sbr on September 08, 2013, 12:25:26 AM
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.
Yeah, last job I had in a restaurant, we just put tops on the drinks.
Pretty sure that non-compete clause is void. Penalty clause looks suspiciously harsh too.
$8 an hour is justification for murder. Even in SC, I make more than that doing literally nothing.
Murder huh?
Most foul? It's hyperbole.
:lol: I watched this episode on YouTube a few months back. I wish I was in Phoenix longer than just a couple of hours next month or I'd pay this place a visit. :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on September 08, 2013, 06:11:06 AM
:lol: I watched this episode on YouTube a few months back. I wish I was in Phoenix longer than just a couple of hours next month or I'd pay this place a visit. :cool:
You should make Heart Attack Grill first priority for Arizona trip.
Good point. That one's also in Scottsdale, right?
Apparently they moved to Vegas.
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 08, 2013, 07:00:05 AM
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.
:unsure: :blink:
Okay...now...I'll be going.
Quote from: sbr on September 08, 2013, 12:25:26 AM
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.
IIRC that's not her real name and they're both ex-cons.
Quote from: Caliga on September 08, 2013, 07:36:11 AM
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.
Lot's of publicity though!
Quote from: sbr on September 08, 2013, 12:35:03 AM
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. :D
I'm not especially surprised. Most of the worst business owners out there tend to be criminals.
I know someone who was on one of the episodes. His restaurant went under.
Quote from: garbon on September 08, 2013, 07:58:37 AM
I know someone who was on one of the episodes. His restaurant went under.
Because of or in spite of?
Quote from: mongers on September 08, 2013, 08:29:49 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 08, 2013, 07:58:37 AM
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.
Quote from: garbon on September 08, 2013, 08:50:19 AM
Quote from: mongers on September 08, 2013, 08:29:49 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 08, 2013, 07:58:37 AM
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.
I like to watch those resturant shows ( and bar rescue) and just TSK TSK my way through them.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2013, 07:56:03 AM
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.
QuoteLastly how would Cal know anything about this? He doesnt do HR. :D
Are you sure, that doesn't sound right.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2013, 07:56:03 AMInteresting. 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. :D
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.
Quote from: mongers on September 08, 2013, 08:29:49 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 08, 2013, 07:58:37 AM
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.
I've always thought if I felt like starting my own restaurant I'd go down to the bank, withdraw all my liquid assets and burn the cash in a big bonfire instead,.
Quote from: Caliga on September 08, 2013, 07:36:11 AM
IIRC that's not her real name and they're both ex-cons.
He's also now in trouble with immigration because he lied on his application about the convictions he had in Europe. :D
This couple is totally a piece of work.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 08, 2013, 11:00:43 AM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2013, 05:33:07 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 08, 2013, 11:00:43 AM
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?
Quote from: sbr on September 08, 2013, 05:37:17 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2013, 05:33:07 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 08, 2013, 11:00:43 AM
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?
Really, so those are in effect 'zero contracts' ?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 08, 2013, 03:56:02 PM
I've always thought if I felt like starting my own restaurant I'd go down to the bank, withdraw all my liquid assets and burn the cash in a big bonfire instead,.
There is nothing wrong with it, as long as you realize that it's a hobby, not a business. As far as hobbies go, it's not much worse than heroin or cocaine hobbies.
Quote from: DGuller on September 08, 2013, 06:34:31 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 08, 2013, 03:56:02 PM
I've always thought if I felt like starting my own restaurant I'd go down to the bank, withdraw all my liquid assets and burn the cash in a big bonfire instead,.
There is nothing wrong with it, as long as you realize that it's a hobby, not a business. As far as hobbies go, it's not much worse than heroin or cocaine hobbies.
:D
Or wargame collecting.
The problems with chefs is that while they may be good at what they do, they often think that's enough to run a restaurant, when in fact they lack the entrepreneurial acumen to run a profitable business.
You can see it with craftsmen, too. Like the plumber who preferred sending himself to the client instead of an employee, "because he doesn't cost anything, whereas he has to pay the employee."
The tip confiscation thing is a labor code violation, or at least it is in Ohio.
You can withhold a paycheck for up to one year, however. Now that's being a dick.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 08, 2013, 11:05:44 PM
You can withhold a paycheck for up to one year, however. Now that's being a dick.
Do these people strike you as caring if they're being dicks or not?
We're exploring ways to punish employees. That's one of the ways.
Thank you, one note Charlie.
Ugh.
I considered posting that but I ain't as childish as dg.
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
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 09, 2013, 08:06:20 AM
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.
Quote from: sbr on September 08, 2013, 05:37:17 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2013, 05:33:07 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 08, 2013, 11:00:43 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2013, 11:55:36 AMAll 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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 09, 2013, 12:51:12 PM
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.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 09, 2013, 02:34:54 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2013, 11:55:36 AMAll 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*
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2013, 03:00:09 PM
*waits for CC to mention how barbaric the US is*
It's implied in most things he and I post. :smarty:
:P
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2013, 03:00:09 PM
*waits for CC to mention how barbaric the US is*
No need. In threads like this it is painfully obvious. Even you recognized it. :)
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.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 09, 2013, 03:22:30 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2013, 03:07:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2013, 03:00:09 PM
*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. :)
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2013, 03:52:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2013, 03:07:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2013, 03:00:09 PM
*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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2013, 03:55:45 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2013, 03:52:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2013, 03:07:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2013, 03:00:09 PM
*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.
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2013, 03:59:10 PM
Oh, I don't think those are barbaric either.
We have known that about you for some time. :)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 09, 2013, 12:51:12 PM
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.
I saw an interview with a waitress they fired (she got fired on air during Gordon's show) and she said she signed their earlier contract without even reading it because she thought that's "what you're just supposed to do."
Quote from: Caliga on September 09, 2013, 04:21:09 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 09, 2013, 12:51:12 PM
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.
I saw an interview with a waitress they fired (she got fired on air during Gordon's show) and she said she signed their earlier contract without even reading it because she thought that's "what you're just supposed to do."
$8/h brains are precious.
Quote from: Caliga on September 09, 2013, 04:21:09 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 09, 2013, 12:51:12 PM
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.
I saw an interview with a waitress they fired (she got fired on air during Gordon's show) and she said she signed their earlier contract without even reading it because she thought that's "what you're just supposed to do."
... and now her old employers are following her around with injunctions to enforce the non-compete clause ... ;)
Quote from: Caliga on September 09, 2013, 04:21:09 PM
I saw an interview with a waitress they fired (she got fired on air during Gordon's show) and she said she signed their earlier contract without even reading it because she thought that's "what you're just supposed to do."
That was hilarious. They quite literally fired her for no reason at all. She was given an instruction, she asked for clarification, and then she was fired for 'having an attitude'.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 09, 2013, 12:51:12 PM
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.
Yeah, they'd almost definitely be unenforceable. What I've read from AZ lawyers on the issue is that there's no bright-line test; judges have to way how reasonable or unreasonable the non-compete is, and AZ judges would almost never enforce a non-compete that completely locks out an entire sector of work.
Quote from: Caliga on September 09, 2013, 04:21:09 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 09, 2013, 12:51:12 PM
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.
I saw an interview with a waitress they fired (she got fired on air during Gordon's show) and she said she signed their earlier contract without even reading it because she thought that's "what you're just supposed to do."
Which is exactly what most people do when they sign contracts.
Quote from: derspiess on September 09, 2013, 08:20:21 PM
Quote from: Caliga on September 09, 2013, 04:21:09 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 09, 2013, 12:51:12 PM
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.
I saw an interview with a waitress they fired (she got fired on air during Gordon's show) and she said she signed their earlier contract without even reading it because she thought that's "what you're just supposed to do."
Which is exactly what most people do when they sign contracts.
To be fair she was a kid, probably still in school.
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2013, 07:58:22 PM
That was hilarious. They quite literally fired her for no reason at all. She was given an instruction, she asked for clarification, and then she was fired for 'having an attitude'.
Supposedly it was the "way she asked"... but yeah.
Quote from: Caliga on September 09, 2013, 08:29:36 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2013, 07:58:22 PM
That was hilarious. They quite literally fired her for no reason at all. She was given an instruction, she asked for clarification, and then she was fired for 'having an attitude'.
Supposedly it was the "way she asked"... but yeah.
Bet you know all about that.
Quote from: Caliga on September 09, 2013, 04:21:09 PM
I saw an interview with a waitress they fired (she got fired on air during Gordon's show) and she said she signed their earlier contract without even reading it because she thought that's "what you're just supposed to do."
She may have signed it, but she also ignored it. She had a couple of threads on Reddit. She was already working at another restaurant at the same time as she was working at Amy's Bakery, so when she got fired, she wasn't too concerned. She was new to Scotsdale, and had no idea what was "normal" for that area.