Kitchen Nighmares season finale - Chef finally walks

[Kaylyn]

The support page I'm almost certain is satire. I don't know what to make of the last link Tama posted, is that a page with the exact same name and profile pic doing their best to troll a genuine attempt at hiring or did Amy/Samy go psycho on their own posting?

I am inclined to believe either way.

[fma_fanatic]

The support site is mostly trolling. Reading through the comments, there are the regular cast of supporters and the rest honestly believe its Amy running the show.

It's my understanding from the page owner(s) that its been taken down at least once, possibly twice due to the amount of trolling and vulgar pictures posted. The pictures have since been removed, but the nasty posts are still there.

[Andrew B.]

I'm re-watching the episode again. Is it sad that my thought when it mentioned the head waitress wasn't aloud to handle money was "Of course she can't handle the money. She might decide to keep the tips that were meant for her".

[PepperElf]

supposedly the staff now claims they get their tips but... i'm wondering if they really do. did samy pull his head out of his ass on that one, or are they just saying that to keep the job?

although even if they *now* let employees have their tips, it won't change the fact that samy openly said "we keep the tips" and explained why on TV. obeying the law *now* doesn't mean they can't be held accountable for breaking it before.

[dendawg]

The insanity continues!

http://eater.com/archives/2013/06/28...y-contract.php

They are now signing up all employees on contracts....just wait till you see some of the terms.

[Aethian]

Aren't some of those illegal?

[Kaylyn]

Aren't some of those illegal?

Yep. Though I laughed at the "no food in the kitchen" one. Because...it's a kitchen. I know she means no outside food/eating in the kitchen, but...food BELONGS in a kitchen and she worded it poorly.

[Crossbow]

Aren't some of those illegal?

Clause #20 could be, depending on how the state decides. Non compete clauses have been found unconscionable if it means that the employee would not be able to practice their career. Based on the way this is written, I'd say that qualifies.

Now, it would be up to the courts to decide if this was the case. I have no idea if anything has been put before the AZ courts or not...

[42_42_42]

I don't understand how anyone would be willing to work for them at this point.

[KatherineB]

Surely it's illegal to fine staff members for not turning up for work (clause #3)!

Is it legal to have money taken from your pay check for damaged items (clause #13)?

What happens if the bullying is coming from Samy or Amy (clause #14)?

And then, of course, there is that lovely clause #19. Is that common in the industry?

[fireheart]

Surely it's illegal to fine staff members for not turning up for work (clause #3)!

Is it legal to have money taken from your pay check for damaged items (clause #13)?

What happens if the bullying is coming from Samy or Amy (clause #14)?

And then, of course, there is that lovely clause #19. Is that common in the industry?

I believe so, not sure about overseas but definitely illegal over here, I'd imagine they could contact the DOL and I'd imagine not re #19.

[EricKei]

Well...IANAL. I have had contract issues with a former employer, which, unfortunately, never got resolved. But, I have learned a few things...

If anything in the contract is against the law, then either that portion of the contract, or the entire contract, is automatically null and void -- it likely varies by state.

Workers can choose to quit (or never start work), rather than signing. If they are coerced into signing, or forced to (even if they do quit), that's Duress, and is very VERY illegal. That, too, invalidates the contract and opens the owners up to some nasty legal liability.

Long story short -- several posts in the thread already talk about legality of some of their actions, and have links to same.

From what I know and/or have experienced --

The cell phone thing is a bit draconian, but fine. The no food Health Code thing may very well be correct.

Fining members - No idea. If it's legal and they sign it, yes, it's binding.

Ready to work 5 mins in advance - As long as all you need to to is hang out until you clock in, yeah, that's kosher.

Attitude - Probably just in there to make it easier to fire people for no good reason. No smart person would sign a contract with that in it.

Family & friends - harsh but OK

Remain in working area, cleaning equipment, etc - That's normal business stuff. If they put it in there it means that they have likely not been enforcing it thus far, which explains a lot. Ewwwww.

Bag checks - They did it at GameStore because they trust noone. I am not sure I see the need for it at a restaurant, tho.

Talking - Again, an easy way to fire people

Damaged items - Probably illegal. I can only assume that these two lovely people will assume that ALL damages are intentional, and thus, qualify for reimbursement.

Bullying - If...no, WHEN it comes from the owners ~_~ It will be gleefully ignored, opening them up to Hostile Workplace liability

Mandatory holidays - That's definitely a "check the local laws" situation

Tips - As was covered in other posts: If the workers get "waiter wage" (under minimum wage), then that is 100% illegal. If they get paid the rate listed in the article...? Unsure. We have link up there in the thread somewhere. The owners and salaried employees cannot share in the tips *no matter what*

Recipes - One of the few completely logical and reasonable things on that list o_O

Non-compete - Never heard of a restaurant doing that, but oh well.

Mandatory weekends -- I do love how they are required, but they also say (in the tips section) that they cannot guarantee a certain level of business. Meaning, they don't know if they WILL have the need for so many people every weekend (unlikely unless they keep only a skeleton crew, which causes other issues). Thus, they will effectively over-schedule and end up sending people home when it's slow. A few "go home after an hour" shifts will run ANY worker off tut de suite.

[Racket_Man]

Surely it's illegal to fine staff members for not turning up for work (clause #3)!

Is it legal to have money taken from your pay check for damaged items (clause #13)?

What happens if the bullying is coming from Samy or Amy (clause #14)?

And then, of course, there is that lovely clause #19. Is that common in the industry?

a few of these "rules and conditions" do indeed violated FEDERAL DOL rules

for theorical purposes: an employee makes $10 per hour (in the middle of their pay range) and works 35 hours per week = $350 per week


The fine for NCNS would be illegal as that "fine" takes the employee below Federal Minimum wage of $7.25. THis would also apply to #16 ie. the fine ($250) for not showing up or working a holiday.

The same could be said about breakage/damage/burning food/drawer shortages.

#19 is illegal IF (according to a recent ruling) there is NO valid tip pooling agreement in place (I think). STILL the Federal DOL rules state that "tips are the sole property of the employee and may not be split6 with those that are not in customarily tipped occupations such as managers cooks etc." but I think that only applies where tip credit wages are paid (ie. sub minimum server wage)

[PepperElf]

Ready to work 5 mins in advance - As long as all you need to to is hang out until you clock in, yeah, that's kosher.

AFAIK requiring someone to be at work at <specific time> means they have to be paid starting from that time. So telling someone they have to be at work at 745 when the shift doesn't start until 750, means the employee has to get paid starting at 745.

The way around it is what my last company did - they simply said we had to be "READY to work" at clock-in, etc. That way they couldn't be entrapped by any legal requirement to pay us extra etc. I personally found that being 10-15 minutes early (or even 30 sometimes) worked well for me, but since they didn't specifically demand I come in that early they didn't owe me anything for it.

[EricKei]

PE - If I read it correctly, that's exactly what the contract proposes: That they be "ready" to work, but not actually begin work until clock-in time.