I'm an Unemployed Waitress. Don't Dine Out at All(noraeberman.com) |
I'm an Unemployed Waitress. Don't Dine Out at All(noraeberman.com) |
But most of the article seems to suggest something like: "when you eat out, you put us, your service staff, at risk." Uhm... quit?
Normally I'd say something like, "most people can't afford to just quit," but no one can afford to pay you to stay home, either, so what exactly is the author proposing?
The article mentions that her boss told her not to come to work if she feels sick. In the industry, I never received anything but pushback for banging out, even when I was deathly ill. The opposite can be true with managers issuing repercussions for calling in sick.
https://ny.eater.com/2020/7/21/21302310/outdoor-dining-reser...
https://www.6sqft.com/best-outdoor-dining-restaurants-nyc/
The tables are next to each other; in many cases, with just enough room for one person to squeeze through. Plexiglass between each table is a rare luxury.
Some of the reasons are good and some are bad. While I also view this development with some dismay, I'm hesitant to criticize people who are merely making different tradeoffs in a different time/context than I am.
That a person's chosen tradeoff might not change in a time of widescale pandemic and massive unemployment surprises me. And that a lot of articles take it granted that people will continue to eat out perplexes me.
We ate out a fair bit before covid19 cases took off but haven't once since March... wasn't even something that we considered at any point.
TBH food at home has been more enjoyable than what we were getting out, the time suck in cleanup is real-- but it isn't like we're going anywhere. :)
The point is that "it only takes ten minutes" is inaccurate in the sense that it doesn't properly represent the labor that's replaced by choosing take-out instead. It's something usually said by people who are already enjoying the privilege of having someone else do most of the work.
Ugh. All 50 states have At-will employment:
"At-will employment is a term used in U.S. labor law for contractual relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning,[1] as long as the reason is not illegal (e.g. firing because of the employee's race, religion or sexuality)." [1]
Being 'fired' has a negative stigma, despite the fact you can be terminated for _any_ reason, including 'employee just didn't fit in'. Many companies are also very savvy about the process. Have a "negative" performance review, with a warning, then some time later be fired. Thus documenting a "cause" other than your ugly sweater.
What's interesting is when employers mistakenly believe they can disqualify you for unemployment because they fired you. This is not the case.
I see a lot of people saying things like "my company ran out of money and they fired me", which does not accurately describe what happened. If you went into a job interview and told them you were "fired" when you were really "laid off", that could dramatically impact whether or not you get the job, so it is important to know what language people use, regardless of the legal definitions.
?! Really?
"important to know what language people use"
Thats exactly what I'm saying. There are three terms recognized by your state department of labor: Quit, Fired, Laid Off.
You can be "fired" both in legal terminology, and in common language use, for no fault of your own, but the word has a negative connotation.
What am I saying? It sucks! It's a failure of language. Socially 'fired' has a negative 'connotation' (which is commonly applied at a personal level), and in both real-world practice and in legal terms 'fired' has the 'denotation' of 'termination' where termination can be all of these things (at a relationship level), and the employee is not necessarily 'at fault'.
The meaning of 'fired' is so unpredictable I can't imagine anyone using it as you say, because they don't know how someone is going to take it.
However, your next employer can call your previous employer to verify employment and there is no federal law preventing the old employer from describing your termination as 'fired'. That sucks.