Sunday, November 11, 2007
The Chron Shills for the Restaurant Industry.
The Chron defends the poor multi-million dollar restaurateurs against the predatory city law that forces them to pay a living wage to their staff.
Add Tara Duggan to the long list of Chronicle hacks, who write stories to further business interest and have no regard for the, you know, facts.
Tara writes:
That [skilled line cooks] crunch, plus many young cooks' expectations of the "Top Chef" high life, are just two of the factors that may make San Francisco's unique mix of chef-owned high-quality neighborhood restaurants a thing of the past.
Man, I had not noticed that those high-quality neighborhood restaurants became extinct. I should have gone to the ones in my neighborhood, Range or Delfina, before they shut down.
But, but, but, who am I to trust my gut instinct, when there is hard data to prove Tara... wrong. She kindly provides the facts that directly contradicts what she writes above:
So far, the difficulty finding staff and the increased cost of doing business in San Francisco hasn't resulted in a rash of restaurant closures. A study released last year by the Institute of Industrial Relations at UC Berkeley showed that San Francisco's minimum wage increase did not cause a widespread increase of business losses or layoffs over a two-year period.
To be honest, Tara contradicts herself several paragraphs down. Maybe she had forgotten what she wrote when she actually decided to look at the reality. But consider this:
Across the country, restaurant owners complain of staffing shortages. Many partly blame the newly glamorous role of chefs in the media, which has created a legion of chef-wannabes. But San Francisco's high cost of living, minimum wage laws and new sick leave and health insurance mandates mean that restaurants are being hit harder here than in other cities.
Let me see if I get it: Chefs are so glamorous, everyone wants to learn how to become one, which means that it's impossible to find a warm body to go into a kitchen. No, I still don't get it.
Tara is so naive that she believes that, if California had a tip credit law which allows to pay wait staff lower than minimal wage due to their tip intake, restaurant owners would give a pay raise to the cook. What else could they do? They could not pocket the difference, it's not as if restaurants were run for profit.
Restaurants are so tight with money, Tara explains, they cannot pay their cooks more. Take Aziza's owner Mourad Lahlou, for instance. He'd love to pay his cooks more than $12/hr, but just can't. Except that:
Local restaurateurs have come up with creative ways to attract and retain cooks. Lahlou typically has an extra person on staff as backup in case someone leaves the job suddenly or can't make it to work.
"It's almost like buying insurance," he said. "Sometimes you're really fully staffed, and you stumble upon someone who's really talented. You don't let them go. You create a position."
Those living wages and health insurance laws are so hard on Lahlou that he has to underpay his staff, plus a few extra-people, back-ups, talented people, contingency replacements and the like. But the fact that Lahlou is underpaying more people than he really needs most surely means, as Tara is convinced, that they would all get a pay raise if the front of the house were paid less. Lahlou would never choose to keep wages low in the back and hire a few more back-ups to the back-ups.
Tara has a nice unionized job, which gives her a platform so she can complain about: how dare these people receive a fraction of the perks she gets. Health insurance? Sick leave? Vacation time? It's for Chron employee, not just for everyone! They're special that way.
Add Tara Duggan to the long list of Chronicle hacks, who write stories to further business interest and have no regard for the, you know, facts.
Tara writes:
That [skilled line cooks] crunch, plus many young cooks' expectations of the "Top Chef" high life, are just two of the factors that may make San Francisco's unique mix of chef-owned high-quality neighborhood restaurants a thing of the past.
Man, I had not noticed that those high-quality neighborhood restaurants became extinct. I should have gone to the ones in my neighborhood, Range or Delfina, before they shut down.
But, but, but, who am I to trust my gut instinct, when there is hard data to prove Tara... wrong. She kindly provides the facts that directly contradicts what she writes above:
So far, the difficulty finding staff and the increased cost of doing business in San Francisco hasn't resulted in a rash of restaurant closures. A study released last year by the Institute of Industrial Relations at UC Berkeley showed that San Francisco's minimum wage increase did not cause a widespread increase of business losses or layoffs over a two-year period.
To be honest, Tara contradicts herself several paragraphs down. Maybe she had forgotten what she wrote when she actually decided to look at the reality. But consider this:
Across the country, restaurant owners complain of staffing shortages. Many partly blame the newly glamorous role of chefs in the media, which has created a legion of chef-wannabes. But San Francisco's high cost of living, minimum wage laws and new sick leave and health insurance mandates mean that restaurants are being hit harder here than in other cities.
Let me see if I get it: Chefs are so glamorous, everyone wants to learn how to become one, which means that it's impossible to find a warm body to go into a kitchen. No, I still don't get it.
Tara is so naive that she believes that, if California had a tip credit law which allows to pay wait staff lower than minimal wage due to their tip intake, restaurant owners would give a pay raise to the cook. What else could they do? They could not pocket the difference, it's not as if restaurants were run for profit.
Restaurants are so tight with money, Tara explains, they cannot pay their cooks more. Take Aziza's owner Mourad Lahlou, for instance. He'd love to pay his cooks more than $12/hr, but just can't. Except that:
Local restaurateurs have come up with creative ways to attract and retain cooks. Lahlou typically has an extra person on staff as backup in case someone leaves the job suddenly or can't make it to work.
"It's almost like buying insurance," he said. "Sometimes you're really fully staffed, and you stumble upon someone who's really talented. You don't let them go. You create a position."
Those living wages and health insurance laws are so hard on Lahlou that he has to underpay his staff, plus a few extra-people, back-ups, talented people, contingency replacements and the like. But the fact that Lahlou is underpaying more people than he really needs most surely means, as Tara is convinced, that they would all get a pay raise if the front of the house were paid less. Lahlou would never choose to keep wages low in the back and hire a few more back-ups to the back-ups.
Tara has a nice unionized job, which gives her a platform so she can complain about: how dare these people receive a fraction of the perks she gets. Health insurance? Sick leave? Vacation time? It's for Chron employee, not just for everyone! They're special that way.
Comments:
Ced:
Hate to say it but you're off base here. Yes, restaurants are run for profit, and yes, some scumbags would try to keep the money rather than giving it as raises but we're all in competition for the same skilled workers. If I start paying more, the guy down the street has to also. Cook's wages rise.
The real solution is the European model of service compris, but that just doesn't fly here. I can't charge what I need to pay everyone in my restaurant what they're worth. And yes, I want to provide for may family as well. But, until this year, the GM and I were the 1st and 2nd lowest paid employees in the place. It's true we got some additional perks, like being able to take time off when we wanted/needed and benefiting from being able to trade with a few business for some services but we're certainly not multi-millionaires. Not even multi-thousandaires,
Hate to say it but you're off base here. Yes, restaurants are run for profit, and yes, some scumbags would try to keep the money rather than giving it as raises but we're all in competition for the same skilled workers. If I start paying more, the guy down the street has to also. Cook's wages rise.
The real solution is the European model of service compris, but that just doesn't fly here. I can't charge what I need to pay everyone in my restaurant what they're worth. And yes, I want to provide for may family as well. But, until this year, the GM and I were the 1st and 2nd lowest paid employees in the place. It's true we got some additional perks, like being able to take time off when we wanted/needed and benefiting from being able to trade with a few business for some services but we're certainly not multi-millionaires. Not even multi-thousandaires,
Haddock,
I know there are decent people in the business, of course. But right now, restaurants do run with this salary structure. What's the incentive to change it?
Regarding millionaires: I'm not talking about the person, but what the restaurant grosses, and it's striking that all the restaurants mentioned in the article are indeed in this category.
Finally: I'm really not talking about the restaurant industry, but about the Chron coverage thereof. Tara Duggan makes no sense, that's all I'm trying to say.
I know there are decent people in the business, of course. But right now, restaurants do run with this salary structure. What's the incentive to change it?
Regarding millionaires: I'm not talking about the person, but what the restaurant grosses, and it's striking that all the restaurants mentioned in the article are indeed in this category.
Finally: I'm really not talking about the restaurant industry, but about the Chron coverage thereof. Tara Duggan makes no sense, that's all I'm trying to say.
I enjoyed the Chronicle article.
You raise two good questions -- would owners really plow profits into raises for line books, and how can their be a cook shortage on the one hand and a glut of would-be line chefs due to food TV on the other.
The first question is hard to investigate -- how prove or disprove someone's intentions in a hypothetical situation -- but certainly valid to raise. Maybe you could ask one of the restaurateurs for a history of line cook wages prior to the minimum wage hikes, and after, and compare the two. Varying economic conditions would make this an imperfect gauge.
As to the second issue, the chefs and owners in the article indicated that the would-be star chefs are simply not trained well or willing to get trained by starting low, and that the shortage is in GOOD line cooks. Given the recent stories on CCA and quality of education there, I can believe that chefs don't want to hire these kids unless they are willing to bust their butt at a job where they learn skills.
I suspect the truth is that, yes, many CCA grads/star chef wannabes are low quality, and some of those are not wiling to pay dues to improve, but simultaneously there are probably some who HAVE built up skills, by taking the right classes or interning or working in restaurants in high school, and ARE willing to pay their dues. Chefs have to find and, key, retain the latter.
Though you raise valid questions, they don't knock over the Chronicle story, as your language seems to imply.
When I wrote you "hate everything ever in the Chronicle" or whatnot, I wasn't saying that paper is above criticism. But when you single someone out by name and say they have "no regard for the facts," you better deliver on that, and I really don't think you do so here.
You raise two good questions -- would owners really plow profits into raises for line books, and how can their be a cook shortage on the one hand and a glut of would-be line chefs due to food TV on the other.
The first question is hard to investigate -- how prove or disprove someone's intentions in a hypothetical situation -- but certainly valid to raise. Maybe you could ask one of the restaurateurs for a history of line cook wages prior to the minimum wage hikes, and after, and compare the two. Varying economic conditions would make this an imperfect gauge.
As to the second issue, the chefs and owners in the article indicated that the would-be star chefs are simply not trained well or willing to get trained by starting low, and that the shortage is in GOOD line cooks. Given the recent stories on CCA and quality of education there, I can believe that chefs don't want to hire these kids unless they are willing to bust their butt at a job where they learn skills.
I suspect the truth is that, yes, many CCA grads/star chef wannabes are low quality, and some of those are not wiling to pay dues to improve, but simultaneously there are probably some who HAVE built up skills, by taking the right classes or interning or working in restaurants in high school, and ARE willing to pay their dues. Chefs have to find and, key, retain the latter.
Though you raise valid questions, they don't knock over the Chronicle story, as your language seems to imply.
When I wrote you "hate everything ever in the Chronicle" or whatnot, I wasn't saying that paper is above criticism. But when you single someone out by name and say they have "no regard for the facts," you better deliver on that, and I really don't think you do so here.
Ryan,
interesting points.
For what you term "the first question", you are right I cannot prove or disprove intentions. But neither can Tara, which is my point. She puts in the article that owners would increase the pay if they could. She quotes owners complaining that they are forced to underpay, because that's the sad financial reality. But she does not question the claim, she takes it as gospel.
You are the journalist, so you can investigate. But look: restaurant owners cried they would provide vacation or sick leave if only they could, that they would pay higher wage to everyone if only they could. Then the laws passed to force them to do it, and it turns out that, well, the restaurant business is pretty much the same as before.
So I firmly believe Tara could put a grain of salt when repeating what these owners say.
Regarding the second issue: what top chef and CCA do is just increasing the noise floor. They are not decreasing the number of qualified applicants, but it's just harder to find them due to a bunch of ill-prepared CCA graduates. In the past, you'd get one good resume, and three bad, now you get one good and ten bad.
Lastly, regarding "facts." There is only one data point in Duggan's article, one study from UC Berkeley that says that the minimum wages increase did not have widespread effect. That's the fact. The rest is hearsay from a small sample of restaurant owners, who have been crying wolf at every opportunity. It's a sobering fact, though, in view of Duggan's heated rhetoric. Despite the only data point saying the opposite, she actually predicts the apocalypse: Top chef "may make SF's [restaurant scene] a thing of the past". You know, whatever.
interesting points.
For what you term "the first question", you are right I cannot prove or disprove intentions. But neither can Tara, which is my point. She puts in the article that owners would increase the pay if they could. She quotes owners complaining that they are forced to underpay, because that's the sad financial reality. But she does not question the claim, she takes it as gospel.
You are the journalist, so you can investigate. But look: restaurant owners cried they would provide vacation or sick leave if only they could, that they would pay higher wage to everyone if only they could. Then the laws passed to force them to do it, and it turns out that, well, the restaurant business is pretty much the same as before.
So I firmly believe Tara could put a grain of salt when repeating what these owners say.
Regarding the second issue: what top chef and CCA do is just increasing the noise floor. They are not decreasing the number of qualified applicants, but it's just harder to find them due to a bunch of ill-prepared CCA graduates. In the past, you'd get one good resume, and three bad, now you get one good and ten bad.
Lastly, regarding "facts." There is only one data point in Duggan's article, one study from UC Berkeley that says that the minimum wages increase did not have widespread effect. That's the fact. The rest is hearsay from a small sample of restaurant owners, who have been crying wolf at every opportunity. It's a sobering fact, though, in view of Duggan's heated rhetoric. Despite the only data point saying the opposite, she actually predicts the apocalypse: Top chef "may make SF's [restaurant scene] a thing of the past". You know, whatever.
Interesting discussion!
Re the article having allegedly only one data point: What owners (and the cooks) say about their own business and experience is not hearsay, by definition they are primary sources!
Obviously skepticism must be applied to any source, but a journalist has to go around talking to the actual people involved, not just quoting studies. It's good that the UCB study was included, given that studies can apply more scientific methodology and contact a more comprehensive array of sources than a journalist, but 1> studies are not themselves perfect or even, individually, definitive, 2> studies are less recent, journalism as a practice exists to provide more recent, but rougher and more anecdotal information than studies, because as readers and citizens we don't want to have to wait for academic studies to get our news (though studies should be cited and publicized when relevant).
Think of it this way: If there were a study (say, from the Hoover Institute at Stanford) that contradicted what you personally knew to be true on the ground, would you want a journalist to slavishly bow to the study as the last word?
With regard to the question of whether owners intended to give raises, I was agreeing you raised a good point, and wasn't saying you personally should investigate, but on the other hand it's tough for the journalist to establish whether the owner would have pocketed the profits. Just because it's possible the owners are lying doesn't mean you don't consider what they say, look at the numbers and economics and report what sounds like a quite plausible argument.
Your point definitely is a possible avenue for further investigation, a good question to ask -- have there been raises in the past.
Re cook availability, if all the TV buzz has just created a 'noise floor,' then the article doesn't contradict itself as your original post suggested, it seems to me. The article posited heightened demand, tougher bosses and flat wages led to a cook shortage. You seemed to be arguing that the surge of interest in being a cook would grow supply, so what's the problem? but as you point out in your last comment, this surge hasn't actually produced more qualified applicants, just made it harder to find them, so it seems like the article's point here still stands.
Re the article having allegedly only one data point: What owners (and the cooks) say about their own business and experience is not hearsay, by definition they are primary sources!
Obviously skepticism must be applied to any source, but a journalist has to go around talking to the actual people involved, not just quoting studies. It's good that the UCB study was included, given that studies can apply more scientific methodology and contact a more comprehensive array of sources than a journalist, but 1> studies are not themselves perfect or even, individually, definitive, 2> studies are less recent, journalism as a practice exists to provide more recent, but rougher and more anecdotal information than studies, because as readers and citizens we don't want to have to wait for academic studies to get our news (though studies should be cited and publicized when relevant).
Think of it this way: If there were a study (say, from the Hoover Institute at Stanford) that contradicted what you personally knew to be true on the ground, would you want a journalist to slavishly bow to the study as the last word?
With regard to the question of whether owners intended to give raises, I was agreeing you raised a good point, and wasn't saying you personally should investigate, but on the other hand it's tough for the journalist to establish whether the owner would have pocketed the profits. Just because it's possible the owners are lying doesn't mean you don't consider what they say, look at the numbers and economics and report what sounds like a quite plausible argument.
Your point definitely is a possible avenue for further investigation, a good question to ask -- have there been raises in the past.
Re cook availability, if all the TV buzz has just created a 'noise floor,' then the article doesn't contradict itself as your original post suggested, it seems to me. The article posited heightened demand, tougher bosses and flat wages led to a cook shortage. You seemed to be arguing that the surge of interest in being a cook would grow supply, so what's the problem? but as you point out in your last comment, this surge hasn't actually produced more qualified applicants, just made it harder to find them, so it seems like the article's point here still stands.
Ryan,
here's a question for an investigative journalist: there are 43 state with tip credit laws. So maybe it's possible to look at a city before and after the tip credit law was passed, and look at what happened to salaries of back of the house before and after the law.
Maybe some economists have done this already!
here's a question for an investigative journalist: there are 43 state with tip credit laws. So maybe it's possible to look at a city before and after the tip credit law was passed, and look at what happened to salaries of back of the house before and after the law.
Maybe some economists have done this already!
What a business grosses and what its owners take home are two vastly different things. There are businesses that gross millions of dollars and have a cost of product that is equal to 99% of that, and businesses whose up front cost of goods is 60%.
Both or neither of those businesses could be profitable, but gross means nothing as to size of profit to owner of business.
Calling someone whose business grosses a million dollars a millionaire is simply incorrect.
Post a Comment
Both or neither of those businesses could be profitable, but gross means nothing as to size of profit to owner of business.
Calling someone whose business grosses a million dollars a millionaire is simply incorrect.
# posted by 
: 2:00 AM
: 2:00 AM
