# Why Chefs work long hours? Foodservice vs other career paths



## cleverchef (Jul 25, 2011)

I am a successful certified chef of 30 years. Recently in a post, a student chef asked me why chefs work such long hours ? I really want to see everyone else input before I answer the student.

I have worked 50 to 70 hours a week all my career, 6 and sometimes 7 days a week.
I began to look at other professions and found that for some reason, chefs do work more hours then most. Carpenters, plummers and electricians work 40 hours (and most make more money than chefs), business and banking people work 40 hours, teachers and professors work 40 hours..... The student asked me; "who decided that it is ok to work the chefs these hours, why it is not normal for most other professions to work more then 40 hours, and it is expected that chefs are to work more than 40 hours in the culinary industry?"

Chefs, what is your answers to this question?


----------



## cleverchef (Jul 25, 2011)

In addition to my comments, I would like to say that *a good chef with great management skills doesn't have to work ungodly hours*.

But also, He or she needs to be supported by the establishment with the proper number of staff, so he or she able manage their time, not to get burned out!

.

There is allot of cheap bastards out there that own restaurants. And allot of hotel managers that get their yearly bonus according to labor costs

*Check this out*: I found this add on Craig's List recently:

Ha!, talk about dangling a carrot in front of an unsuspecting young chef. This is a real "help wanted" add in OC, Ca.

Chef, needed to take over the entire Kitchen. American / Italian food, 70 hrs a week, 6 days a week.
Will pay a top salary, and profit sharing every month. I am looking for a long term relationship and possible ownership.
thanking you, send resumes.

*A truly successful restaurateur wouldn't send an add like this.*

*So, beware... This restaurant owner doesn't want you as a partner. He's a cheap bastard.*


----------



## petemccracken (Sep 18, 2008)

Chefs, by definition (at least IMHO), are MANAGERS, not laborers nor foremen.

In my nearly 50 years of employment, about 45 in management, I frequently put in 60, 70, even 80 and 90 hours per week when the job called for it. My pay was not based on the hours but what got accomplished.

Chefs, again IMHO, are paid to see to it that the job gets accomplished, primarily through the efforts laborers that put in 40 hours per week, and the chef better have a damned good explanation for any overtime that gets paid!

If you want 40 hours per week, find a corporate cook job or paper pusher.


----------



## chefjw (Aug 11, 2011)

I used to work those kind of hours; not anymore. I found that by sticking to my guns, and recruiting the best possible talent I coul & having absolute faith in them. . Being more organized in my planning and time usage. Having set standardized recipes & plating specs. All of these have  gained me a lot more free time. However: that being said, there are those times when it is essential that I put in extra time...this I do out of genuine love and care about my product & presentation.

It's is an Art that takes alot love and attention.


----------



## cleverchef (Jul 25, 2011)

To this day I still put in the long hours, but mostly because I want to be there.

Yes it is:

an Art that takes alot love and attention.


----------



## cleverchef (Jul 25, 2011)

ChefJW....What if ?.. say you worked at a restaurant or hotel that wouldn't give you the budget for "recruiting the best possible talent".     Lets say all your cooks were a level one step above dishwasher at minimum wage. It's easy to say that we would move on to a better establishment, but in this economy there are fewer choices even for the the most experienced head chef.

And yes, I do have the great administrative tools such as standardization and plate specs, but I spend 30% of my time babysitting people who can not read neither English or their own language.

I know that I am not alone. There are many other chefs out there working tons more hours because the establishment refuses to pay for good talent. I would rather put in a 14 hour day doing what I do best, than working 6 hours babysitting losers. It's not the amount of hours that is the issue, it's the mentality of the industry saying it's ok for the chef to pick up the slack.


----------



## cleverchef (Jul 25, 2011)

80/90 hours a week working for myself... Yes, absolutely....

80/90 hours a week working for someone else's retirement $$, No way !


----------



## chefross (May 5, 2010)

*"who decided that it is ok to work the chefs these hours, why it is not normal for most other professions to work more then 40 hours, and it is expected that chefs are to work more than 40 hours in the culinary industry?"*



Anybody have any idea why this is?


----------



## petemccracken (Sep 18, 2008)

Chefross said:


> *"who decided that it is ok to work the chefs these hours, why it is not normal for most other professions to work more then 40 hours, and it is expected that chefs are to work more than 40 hours in the culinary industry?"*
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody have any idea why this is?


During my 45+ years of "working life", a large majority of the successful professionals I have observed, i.e. lawyers, doctors, accountants, engineers, scientists, CEOs, CFOs, and others, put in far more than 40 hours per week. Conversely, a large majority of trades workers, i.e. mechanics, electricians, plumbers, bookkeepers, clerks, teachers, typists (do they still exist?), carpenters, assembly line workers,etc., rarely work more than 40 hours per week.

Perhaps it is a result of labor laws, i.e. overtime rules, etc.? BTW, were you aware that "overtime rules" were put in place to encourage hiring more workers rather than increasing pay to individual workers?

Yes, chefs work far more hours than anyone else in the BOH, but chefs are the only "professionals" in the BOH, the rest are "trades workers".


----------



## riochef (Aug 14, 2011)

I worked in Aspen Co. for three years at a successful catering business. We closed down 6 weeks in the spring and 6 weeks in the fall.

But, I worked 9am to 9pm+ every single day in the summer months. I never thought, at the time, that the hours were too long, since I loved the art of the work. I did mostly small dinner parties in high end mansions. We specialized in selling a 5 course sit-down dinner party with tray-pass hors and cordials. We occasionally did buffets also . Myself and another chef, we averaged about 10 to 15 of these little $1K to $2K gigs a week along with other drop-off food business.

At that catering job I designed the menus, ordered the food, received the food, prepped the food, loaded the equipment and food in the truck, drove the truck, unloaded at the site, executed the event,managed both FOH and BOH, loaded the equipment back in the truck, drove it back to the shop, unloaded the truck and then washed all the equipment.

Short of selling the gigs, I did all the work, this under the anticipation of owning that company because the owner was about 3 or 4 years to retirement and he was telling me that "I was the one"... the one that would inherit his company, become the owner when he retires.

Well, I never got the oportunity to take over that business, the owner just kept on going.

I worked my ass off, and I am no hack. We did awsome food and events. I can walk into any home and cater any level to the highest of anyone's expectations. But what did I get out of working for that guy? yes maybee some good memories and a great learning experience. But really,

I've got arthritis in my lower back and hips and cervical spinal stenosis.... All related to the hard back breaking work of catering.

As for the guy I worked for, he finally retired very wealthy, and sold his company to a competitor


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

cleverchef said:


> In addition to my comments, I would like to say that *a good chef with great management skills doesn't have to work ungodly hours*.
> 
> But also, He or she needs to be supported by the establishment with the proper number of staff, so he or she able manage their time, not to get burned out!
> 
> .


Ahh-nope.

First we have an issue here with the word "Chef", it's all over the place, from a guy who's managing a hotel brigade, to a "student Chef"

So, for arguement's sake, let's just define the word "Chef" as someone who's responsible for the profitable running of the kitchen.

O.K. so a Chef is management, and management get paid a salary, not hourly wages. Most Chef's negotiate a wage that also takes into account the food cost and to some extent, the labour cost. If the Chef only wants to work 50 hours or less, he beter have some management to back him up, but doing this will raise his labour costr tothe extent that it might get him kicked out. If the Chef is clever _*and*_ lucky, and takes full advantage of the catering facilities, the pastry kitchen, etc. he can geneerate enough income to keep everything above water and only work a minimu of 50 hrs per week.

But that's kind of like trying to arrange all the noodles in a bowl of soup to all point norht/southn at one time..

It can be done, but you have to invest alot more than 50 hrs per week to get to that stage.

If and when you do get to that stage, the owner sells the place because you are making good money for it, or gets stupid and greedy and turfs you and hires one of your juniors or some snot-nose out of culinary school with absolulety no mangement experience at a much lower salary and a far greater workload.

And there you have it.


----------



## cleverchef (Jul 25, 2011)

I graduated my ACF apprenticeship in 1984, I was just like most culinary graduates back then that knew the hours wer going to be long. I had the "go get it" attitude, Nobody back then would ever complain about the hard work and long hours. It is an art, differant than any other profession. It was undertood and accepted that the road would be tough. Only the strong could servive.

Very few people outside of the kitchen really understand the real work involved in putting out a work of art and taste that people take or consume internally. An executive chef has more responsability than anyone else in the establishment, and we have to work those hours to pull it off, keep it safe and make a profit. 99% of all chefs will remain pretty much unknown their whole career. Sometimes I think it's easier to become a grammy award winning music star than it is to become a celebrity chef. I look back at the estabishments that I worked for all my career and ask myself "Why did I work so hard for that place?, Why did I put in those kind of hours for those people?"   Yes, I made a living, made some really great money and even got my 15 minutes of fame few times. I am very proud of the accompishments I made in my career. But in the end, most of the restaurants, caterers and hotels that I worked for to this day don't have the respect for the head chefs that got them where they are now. Up until just in the last 5 or so years, chefs in general were the most under-respected professionals in the world. But still we continue to be creative, develop new menus, train new crews, turn profits for the establishments and make kick-ass plates. There's always going to be the pain of long hours to pull this off.


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

That whole post you wrote could also be used to describe an aspiring musician.

Don't know where this thread is going.

The industry sucks big time becasue there are no standards in place.  Heck, in some of your States, the waiters even get paid a lower than minimum wage.

I don't navel gaze and whine.

I've been cooking since '82, and I've worked for myself since '96. Instead of dealing with jerk FnB's or owners, I deal with jerk customers. I also deal with pleasant, respectful customers most of the time.

Cooking is a trade, a Chef runs a business.  My business philosophy is to find a niche, make something unique, charge a fair price, and work the crap hours.


----------



## greenguy (Apr 12, 2010)

PeteMcCracken said:


> During my 45+ years of "working life", a large majority of the successful professionals I have observed, i.e. lawyers, doctors, accountants, engineers, scientists, CEOs, CFOs, and others, put in far more than 40 hours per week. Conversely, a large majority of trades workers, i.e. mechanics, electricians, plumbers, bookkeepers, clerks, teachers, typists (do they still exist?), carpenters, assembly line workers,etc., rarely work more than 40 hours per week.
> 
> Perhaps it is a result of labor laws, i.e. overtime rules, etc.? BTW, were you aware that "overtime rules" were put in place to encourage hiring more workers rather than increasing pay to individual workers?
> 
> Yes, chefs work far more hours than anyone else in the BOH, but chefs are the only "professionals" in the BOH, the rest are "trades workers".


I completely agree with this. A chef is generally a salaried management position and many people in these positions in any field put in over 40 hrs a week. I know sales managers working 50-60hrs a week, investment bankers over 90hrs a week, small business owners putting in well over 60hrs a week, etc. It's just the nature of a higher level job with more responsibilities and it's not only unique chefs. However, it does seem much harder for a chef to escape working these long hours.


----------



## cleverchef (Jul 25, 2011)

Investment bankers make 6 figures, Business owners are doing it for themselves and Most sales managers do very well.

Compare salaries, the average chef with 5 years out of school is working 60 to 70 hours and averages about $50K.


----------



## cleverchef (Jul 25, 2011)

foodpump said:


> That whole post you wrote could also be used to describe an aspiring musician.
> 
> Don't know where this thread is going.
> 
> ...


At the beginning of the thread, it was a person young and making a choice weather to stick it out in this profession..

I was asked the "Hours & $$" questions by this individule, so I started the thread.


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

If the person has worked in the industry before going to culinary school, they wouldn't be asking that question.

As one of my fomer bosses would say, "Sh*t, or get off the pot." ( pot in this case referring to a terlet)

Anyone who has worked in the industry for a year or more knows that salary suck big time, benefits are non existant,  and that treachery and treason lurk at every corner.

wanna make a difference?

Tell the ACF to "look after the pennies, the dollars will lookk after themselves"
In other words, focus on the training of cooks, the qualifications/benchmaks, of cooks, and above all the testing of cooks. 

Not Chefs.  They can look after themselves. 

Maybe, perhaps, if only, we had a standard for cooks, the various culinary schools could have a cohesive curriculum, maybe they wouldn't be hosing students for 60 grand, and maybe owners would actually respect the cook instead of hosing them as well. 

And maybe the customer would pay good money for good food......


----------



## greenguy (Apr 12, 2010)

cleverchef said:


> Investment bankers make 6 figures, Business owners are doing it for themselves and Most sales managers do very well.
> 
> Compare salaries, the average chef with 5 years out of school is working 60 to 70 hours and averages about $50K.


Yeah, those are some bad examples. I just meant that a job's hours are generally proportionate to the level of responsibility involved, which seems to be true in most cases for chefs. And yeah, the pay usually doesn't match making it hard to justify the hours.


----------



## billrchef (Oct 11, 2009)

I have been in this business for over 38 yrs. I`ve worked long hrs through out my career. My wife would explain to the women who wnated to be married or "involved" whith chefs that "its like being married to a doctor with out the BIG income.

 Lately my question to myself at over 50 is how do I tell my corporation when to much work is just TOO much. I`ve been doing the work of 6-7 people 12- 16 hrs a day since july, and I don`t know how mush longer I can actually keep doing it. My staff of 25 is now down to 7 !!!!!! My GM will not allow any OT ( she wants to make the ficsal yr, end budget)

Along with running my own unit I also have to support our district as I`ve been handed that title as well. It`s not the long hours that are getting to me, but the pace I have to keep. you would have to imagine the pace kept on the show "Chopped" every day 12- 16 hrs. I consider myself in good shape ....but really how much can the company actually expect out of one guy???


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

Break a leg.

No seriously. Find a way to get yourself in a hospital or in a bed for two weeks _*before*_ the end of the fiscal year.

After that, arrange a mtg with corporate HR and demand your cut of the low labour bonus that your GM gets.

Then, put on a teflon coated bullet proof helmet, titanium, teflon coated underwear, and watch the sh*t fly around you. Telfon is important, because someone is going to try and make the sh*t stick on you.


----------



## cheff0 (Oct 20, 2013)

Go down to the hardware outlet

isle 7

what youre looking for is a big bag

it will be full of cement

take it home

have a spoonfull

and harden the F up!

everybody has a choice!


----------



## alaminute (Aug 22, 2013)

It's a variable equation in comparison. Carpenters, hatters and laborers shared our plight until about a hundred years ago when everyone started unionizing and demanding higher equal pay for 'reasonable' hours. Even if a tradesman hates unions they still enjoy the pay rate of their union brothers. Also the money that goes to pay most tradesman comes from larger pools of set contracts so a person placing a bid overseeing an operation knows how fat of a cut they're going to walk away with. So to start other workers have organized labor forces as well as set allocations of finance.
Now on the restaurant end: we have unions- and union chefs are paid well- but it's a much smaller percentage. Also what real power do we have? People NEED buildings and clothes but people don't NEED restaurants. If we strike people just eat elsewhere. So we have the same size workforce as these comparative careers with workers of varying ability fighting to do better in an industry averaging pay between 8 and 12 dollars an hour as opposed to an average journeyman pay of 17-25 an hour. Also where does our money come from? The owners. They want the biggest cut, and there is no 'allocation' or set too. If your spot does well you don't make more your boss does.
So why? Why do we do this? It's a personal quest for perfection and the satisfaction that comes with being a craftsman. And we are a dying breed, this too shall change. There are nice new architectural wonders but nothing to compare to the Sistine chapel- not just the ceiling but every part of it! French chefs were at a loss when the enforced the 35 hour week, and payed stages. Gone are the days of thirty chefs in a kitchen working for free. We work to create something great and beautiful and satisfying that we can share and take pride in. It's not wrong to want to be successful or payed honestly but if you're in this for the money than you're in for the wrong reason


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

You're on the right track, a'la minute, but you need some minor steering corrections.

Yes, the trades are unionized and do enjoy better salary and working hours, and all this happened about 100 years ago. But what else happened?  The various trade unions took an active interest in qualifications--this is what originally separated the unionized from the non-unionized--better education and qualifications.  Thus, if you don't get a licensed plumber or electrician to work on your house or building, not only will City Hall tell you to rip it out and get a licensed tradesman to do  and fine you as well, but your Insurance co. will refuse to cover you.  The various trade unions take an active interest in the trade schools and the curriculum the schools offer, in many cases helping design curriculae, supplying the infastructure, and even working with Municipal Gov'ts to design the local codes for that particular trade.  And it makes sense, look after the pennies and the dollars will look after themselves: Pay interest in the education of your future Union members and you will be rewarded--in the form of a slice of the member's paycheck (ie union dues).

The hospitality biz has diddly-squat.  Yes, we have Unions, but what do they do?  What standards or qualifications do they have?  What qualification can the Union take to the employer and say:"Look, Fred/Barney here has this certification and must paid according the our rate of $X/hr?   What influence do they have in the cooking schools?  Is there a common standard the schools have?  A common textbook? Nothing.  What's the difference between a Union cook and a non-union cook? (Chefs are mngmt, cooks are union)  Every Union shop I've worked in, there is no difference, the Union offers no training or skill building courses. How do you get get the advertised maximum Union pay?  It's complicated, because the hospitality Unions run on seniority, not on merit.  You don't get full pay untill you are full time, and you don't get full time for at least 5 years.  Most cooks I've hired are working 2 or even 3 jobs, but always to support themselves in order to one day get f/t at the Union kitchen. 

I respectfully disagree with you in that our money comes from the owners.  It doesn't.  It comes from the customer.  And 99% of the customers want to pay as little as possible for their meal.

After 30 years in this business, I think our worst enemy is ourselves:  We have too much competition, and the customer is always looking for the best bang for their buck.  A plumber can't work for himself until he is licensed, but any eejit can open up a restaurant--and many do.  And when an eejit runs a place he starts the strip-tease of lowering prices, cutting every corner where s/he can, and labour is one of the biggest costs.

If we ever want out of this mess, the Unions are gonna have to step up to the plate....


----------



## petemccracken (Sep 18, 2008)

FoodPump, got a question that keeps nagging at me: where does the money come from for higher food service wages?

A fairly common guideline for food service is: Food cost+Labor cost+Overhead+Profit = Sales and a generally measured ratio is 30%+30%
+30%+10%, giver or take a few percentage points one way or the other.

Now, from your statement:


> I respectfully disagree with you in that our money comes from the owners. It doesn't. It comes from the customer. And 99% of the customers want to pay as little as possible for their meal.


it is obvious the money comes from the customers and the customers, apparently, do not want to pay more.

Now that creates a conundrum. If labor costs are increased, be it by labor unions, government fiat, or owners, where do we shave expenses to stay in business?

If the sales price remains constant and we increase labor cost by, say, 50%, the updated guideline becomes 25%+45%+25%+5%, respectively. I'm not aware of any food purveyors willing to accept less nor the various overhead entities, e.g. landlords, utilities, insurance, etc., and I'm fairly certain that most owners would be very reluctant to give up half of their share of the profits.

Perhaps this is why the government, unions, and owners abdicate trying to increase wages? The current business models would collapse!

Standards are definitely needed, whether by government fiat, a la Canada, unionization, a la other trades, or by simply being the smart way to run a business. If the imposition of standards does not include some mechanism to increase revenues, such an imposition is doomed to failure.

Unlike the plumbing, electrical, carpentry, ironworker, and other trades, food service does not supply an essential service. Cooking is not a unique skill nor are there enforceable standards that must be met for human consumption. Even the poorest Third World family has the ability to prepare food for consumption.


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

Well, yes cooking is a common skill available to everyone, but in order to SELL food to the public, you do need to meet certain qualifications.

Look, My Dad, at age 66 with the help of me (a cook) and my brother (an architect) built his own dream home, did all the wiring himself and aced the electrical inspection.  My next door  neighbor builds his own computers.

Where does the trade of cook start?  Certainly not at McD's, maybe it starts at a $9.00/guest cheque lunch place. How about bakers?  Certainly not at the supermarket, they just open boxes and tray and package. I'm not knocking McD's, I had my first job there, and I received training, but I had very limited experiences and techniques to learn from.

In any city in N.America you can eat a meal from as low $1.99 to the sky's the limit, and usually with dozens of ethnic options. The competition for the dining dollar is cut-throat, and the lure of using pre-fab items and untrained labour is very enticing.  Everybody does it to some extent, I started off (after MCD's) washing dishes and learning and watching around me.

So how much can someone learn in a McD's enviroment?  And more importantly, do we need to pay them more than minimum wage?  I'd say no.

How about the cook in a medium to high end kitchen?  I'd say yes.  These aren't kids looking to buy a new smartphone with their first wages, nor are they (for the most part) University students looking for a way to pay rent so they can go on to be a Civil engineer or an accountant.

The thing is, if cooks can't make a decent living, what will happen in the future?  Can we still attract people who want to learn, to create, to cook--and more importantly move on to higher and higher positions?  Or will we rely on immigrant labour and pre-fab food?

I once worked under a F&B who loved to throw curve balls at me, and I quickly learned to answer "Never a dull moment" when he asked how I was feeling.  One day he asked me to drop the food cost by 10% within a week and both of us knew he was waiting for me to say "It can't be done".  I started off by saying there's only so much cheese paring you can do, and after that it's blatant cheating.  No, the answer I said, was to immediately raise the menu prices.  He walked away.

If I want a water heater installed by a licensed plumber I have to pay the going rate, same for a CGA to do my taxes.


----------



## alaminute (Aug 22, 2013)

So obviously this is a dynamic issue with a great deal of facets and 'causes'. Chef McCracken I appreciate you echoing what I thought was redundant about our money coming from the customers. Although in my case I am NOT a chef. I hold a sous position at one of scottadales finest restaurant but I'm just a cook still. The customer pays the restaurant, and the restaurant pays me. I'll work stupid amounts of hours but I won't work for free, I.e. Even if no money is coming in because it's slow the owners better still pay me for services rendered. So MY money comes from the owner. 
I agree that union employees are better trained -most are given college credits, certifications and the like through classes offered at their respective halls. But again it goes back to necessity. A society can exist without restaurants, not without doctors and carpenters. Thus we can't hope for government fundings and private help of the same magnitude as competing trades. I also agree with you food pump when you say our greatest enemy is ourselves. We are a notoriously ruthless and cutthroat occupation.
So chefs have it rough and nobody knows just how hard except us, this is common knowledge. I love it when my wife tries to compare 7 hours in an office to thirteen hours on a hot line, but we owe these other trades some slack too. Teachers have forced unpaid vacay for four months, construction workers whole goal is to work themselves out of a job, once a project is done they're unemployed until more work comes- which could take months. Bank tellers are useless, I have nothing to justify their existence.
Also I bet Daniel humm, Renee redzepi, and marco Pierre white receive checks which are not to be scoffed at, far dwarfing the greatest carpenter. Maybe David Chang is right and we should all be replaced by robots.


----------



## chefross (May 5, 2010)

I would be very leery if the government got involved in any kind of certification process for the restaurant industry.

Small town Mom and Pops would disappear. The food "police" would be at your door telling you how to cook, when to cook, and what to cook.

This would be a giant can of worms.

By the way....you must leave teachers out of this.

They work well beyond the 8-4:30 school day shift, and take their work home with them.

They are under paid and never receive the Kudos they deserve.


----------



## alaminute (Aug 22, 2013)

I feel like you totally missed my statement Chef Ross. To reiterate restaurants aren't a necessity therefore they WONT be as likely to ever recieve government funding OR private subsidies on the same scale as other occupations. Also I was trying to point out the difficulties educators face, not to seem unappreciative.


----------



## cheflayne (Aug 21, 2004)

I just saw an ad looking for a Head Chef. The compensation was an astonishing $10.00 an hour. The solution to long hours and low pay in our industry is a Gordian Knot.


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

Gentlemen...

Cooking IS a necessity, and cooking does not only pertain to restaurants.  I've said it many times, and I''ll say it again, cooks have the power to make a pleasant dining experience, a miserable one, or the power to kill or maim someone.

The Mom&Pops have long disappeared from towns and small cities, and have been replaced with chain eateries.

IF cooking is not sustainable, then we won't have future cooks.  If you've ever worked under an Fn"B or an owner who has never spent a week in the kitchen, then you know how the industry will look in the future.  The position of a cook is only a stepping stone, most of us go on to bigger and better things, and we draw from our cooking experiences in these new positions.

I Started my apprenticeship in Switzerland in '85, and I was told by many in the industry that I started at the right time--it was only a few years before that the only Hospitality Union decided that they would have to start a 5 day week (as opposed to a 6 day week)  in order to retain present employees and attract new ones.

You need certification to get out of this mess, and it is a mess.

Regarding teachers?  Yes, I agree they work hard and are underpaid.

However........

Teachers are paid above minimum wage and have benefits.  Coerced 4 months vacations?  I beg to differ.  Teachers know in advance--well in advance, when their holidays start, and for how long.  They are at liberty to work at any other place during this time, and many do.  They also know that they will get weekends and public holidays off.  Pretty good way to raise a family.  I can only wish I had those luxuries.......


----------



## humblecook (Oct 12, 2013)

Great food requires great dedication. That's it.

You can get tons of high paying, 40 hour a week cooking jobs. You'll just have to accept the level of food you'll be cooking in terms of quality (not always) and creativity will be shit by global standards.


----------



## phaedrus (Dec 23, 2004)

I'll probably get flamed for this, and if so so be it. In the decades I've been doing this I've had to work some very long hours. I've always accepted this as part of the job. That said, I think it's a cultural holdover that's outlived its usefulness, and much/most of the time it's simple cheapness on the part of owners and pure inertia. As has been pointed out, a kitchen isn't a magic cash machine that prints money but in the long run I suspect riding chefs until they drop is bad for business and expensive.

Over the years I've worked with a lot of talented chefs that have dropped out due to the absurd demands of the job. More than a few left for bank jobs or something else more "9 to 5", often at the insistence of their spouses. _Fine, you say, if you can't take the heat_...And fair enough, to a degree there's validity to that. Yet I can't help but wonder how much talent and creativity has been lost. Let's face it, when you crunch the numbers there's not a lot of reason for a really smart gal or guy to chose the kitchen over engineering, medicine, etc.

And I wonder about the monetary costs of continually replacing chefs that leave because of burnout. For that matter, what is the cost of burnout? You know, that point where you're on autopilot, too exhausted to come up with anything new. No matter how "hard-ass" you are, you can only do so much good work per week. Speaking for myself, I can do 75 hours for quite awhile- but everything over 50 to 55 won't be my best work. Despite popular opinion chefs are human and not exempt from biology and physiology. This is also getting to be a big controversy in medicine; the old guard of doctors had to do a 120 hours/week during residency so they expect the new kids to do it, too. But there's a mountain of evidence that this is killing patients.

I dunno, this is just my opinion. But I expect the culture of restaurants to evolve a bit over the next couple decades. I feel that a skilled chef that's a smart manager should be able to do the job without working a hundred hours. That many hours is probably covering for some weaknesses in their time management skills.


----------



## chefross (May 5, 2010)

alaminute said:


> I feel like you totally missed my statement Chef Ross. To reiterate restaurants aren't a necessity therefore they WONT be as likely to ever recieve government funding OR private subsidies on the same scale as other occupations. Also I was trying to point out the difficulties educators face, not to seem unappreciative.


Sorry...but I'm with Foodpump on this one. The restaurant industry as it stand in its' present form, is in a Renaissance period.

I read countless industry periodicals that say that the present state of our industry needs to change in order for it to survive , but as was previously mentioned, the chains have taken over small town America. With so much competition for the customer dollar, the mom and pops have no chance to survive.

My previous point was about creating a universal system of controls and procedures for ALL food service facilities.

This would put many places out of business and is not in keeping with the American capitalist society.


----------



## mrshapiro (Oct 12, 2013)

Im working almost 300 hours a month.....you cant do nothing when a restaurant is working all week and all the holidays and not closes....specially when you have only 8 cooks...


----------



## alaminute (Aug 22, 2013)

Chef Ross, I still feel like we're talking about differant things
Humble chef, I really like how simply you summed that up.


----------



## chefross (May 5, 2010)

alaminute said:


> Chef Ross, I still feel like we're talking about differant things
> Humble chef, I really like how simply you summed that up.


Nope I understood quite well.

You're saying that restaurants are not a necessity.

How about tanning parlors, tattoo stores, hair stylists?

Necessity? Perhaps.

Certified and licensed....absolutely!

Humblecook....sometimes people have to make sacrifices in order to make a living right?

A 40 hour a week job cooking job that pays benefits and gives a descent living,

may be better than working 70 hours a week at a restaurant job that leaves you exhausted, stressed, and frustrated.

As you mentioned it depends on what level you want to work.

*However*, I take issue with your judgement that one is BETTER than the other.

Do you really think that most of the people here on our forums work in high end fine dining venues?

I know that there are cooks here that work at chains and read our banter everyday, but keep silent......

simply because there is an "air" of nobility here that looks down on chain restaurant cooks.

I have a lot respect for people who work at a chain restaurant and know food and how to approach the corporate mindset with regards to standards and consistency. I have little respect for the chain restaurant worker who feels he/she is in a rut and doesn't want to follow procedures because of that.

If we (collectively) can not embrace cooks from all walks of the restaurant industry then these forums are meaningless.


----------



## alaminute (Aug 22, 2013)

I don't think I've ever got ink from a "certified" tattoo artist nor have I had my hair cut by a 'licensed' professional. Maybe my hair doesn't look as good as yours? And heck no, none of those things are necessary but perhaps that's why they mirror our field in pay and success. 

Are you saying true greatness can be accomplished through mediocre effort? It's not necassarily just time but all aspects that go into making something great. In our case time is a factor. 
Offal is a great example. When's the last time you saw cheek on a chain menu or had truly incredible earth shattering chx liver from a corporate environment?
I want to make and be a part of the best product possible I want to perform and learn on a level with the best, and these are attributes that I always thought were positive, but if I've assumed an 'air of nobility' from wanting to discuss the most amazing and impacting aspects of our culture than please direct me to a site where I can talk to others donning blue aprons.


----------



## petemccracken (Sep 18, 2008)

When examining analogous trades, think of the ambiguity in the term "painter", it not only refers to fine artists but also to journeymen house painters!

A cook cooks food to be eaten.

A chef manages a kitchen to produce a profit and pay the bills.

A culinary artist creates masterpieces for the eye as well as the taste buds.

Please do not confuse the roles.


----------



## chef garnette (Aug 30, 2012)

Correct Information Here, i have 11 years of experience in the Kitchen today and i totally agree to your point here; always more hours and this does not for whatsoever reason push me to ask why work more hours; the job demands it. In my few years, i have come to understand that a normal chef will never leave his job unaccomplished, which will take more than 60 hours per week. And i find it more acceptable and easier. As a Chef one is simply a Manager and is in more control at most times than the owner.


----------



## chef garnette (Aug 30, 2012)

Phaedrus said:


> I'll probably get flamed for this, and if so so be it. In the decades I've been doing this I've had to work some very long hours. I've always accepted this as part of the job. That said, I think it's a cultural holdover that's outlived its usefulness, and much/most of the time it's simple cheapness on the part of owners and pure inertia. As has been pointed out, a kitchen isn't a magic cash machine that prints money but in the long run I suspect riding chefs until they drop is bad for business and expensive.
> 
> Over the years I've worked with a lot of talented chefs that have dropped out due to the absurd demands of the job. More than a few left for bank jobs or something else more "9 to 5", often at the insistence of their spouses. _Fine, you say, if you can't take the heat_...And fair enough, to a degree there's validity to that. Yet I can't help but wonder how much talent and creativity has been lost. Let's face it, when you crunch the numbers there's not a lot of reason for a really smart gal or guy to chose the kitchen over engineering, medicine, etc.
> 
> ...


Of course, whoever put the rules across that a normal working week should be 40/45hours was and will still remain the most intelligent mafia I've ever known; Yes, one will do even up to 100hours a week, but, the more hours you work without rest, the poor the quality. Just face it. We are all strong but rest is vital to good results. Thanks for sharing Phaedrus, really restaurateurs should start discussing these issues in their local authorities' meetings.


----------



## alaminute (Aug 22, 2013)

Perfectly stated chef McCracken


----------



## petemccracken (Sep 18, 2008)

A cook (tradeperson) works when the manager (chef) says to and does what the manager (chef) says to do. As a general rule, money (as in paycheck) is the motivating factor.

A chef (manager) decides what needs to be done by the cook(s) (tradepersons) and how long the cook(s) should work and goes to work before the cook(s) and stops work after the last cook (tradeperson) leaves. As a general rule, profit is the motivating factor, as in pay the bills and have some left over.

A culinary artist starts whenever the muses dictate, does whatever the muses inspire, and continues until the muses are satisfied. As a general rule, money in any form is secondary to satisfying the muses.

On rare occasions, a culinary artist connects with a chef that grasps the vision of the muses and has the ability to find and direct tradeperson(s)  to implement the vision and generate the profits that allow the culinary artist to follow the muses.


----------



## phaedrus (Dec 23, 2004)

Chef Garnette said:


> Of course, whoever put the rules across that a normal working week should be 40/45hours was and will still remain the most intelligent mafia I've ever known; Yes, one will do even up to 100hours a week, but, the more hours you work without rest, the poor the quality. Just face it. We are all strong but rest is vital to good results. Thanks for sharing Phaedrus, really restaurateurs should start discussing these issues in their local authorities' meetings.


It's worth noting that Henry Ford conducted a lot of research and study decades ago to determine what the most efficient/effective work week was. He arrived at almost exactly forty hours. We like to think we're "evolved" or more advanced that those old timers but the fact is we're not. Wanting to be a hard ass and proving how many hours you can work seems somehow...kind of juvenile and pointless. Work smarter, not harder; the saying has some validity.

I'm under no illusions that there will be a rapid sea change shift to shorter hours, but I feel it could be done without affecting productivity.

My new chef at work is really trying to get a five day week set up for all the staff. I've worked at least six days a week for most of the last 25-30 years, so I'm of the "I'll believe it when I see it" school of thought. But he has a point. At the end of the day there has to be some reason to keep working at your job beyond just the paycheck. Hopefully that reason isn't just that another job would suck more! We all hope to do something we're passionate about but part of keeping that passion alive is nurturing some kind of life outside of work.


----------



## sansei ginger (Feb 3, 2013)

Phaedrus said:


> It's worth noting that Henry Ford conducted a lot of research and study decades ago to determine what the most efficient/effective work week was. He arrived at almost exactly forty hours. We like to think we're "evolved" or more advanced that those old timers but the fact is we're not. Wanting to be a hard ass and proving how many hours you can work seems somehow...kind of juvenile and pointless. Work smarter, not harder; the saying has some validity.
> 
> I'm under no illusions that there will be a rapid sea change shift to shorter hours, but I feel it could be done without affecting productivity.
> 
> My new chef at work is really trying to get a five day week set up for all the staff. I've worked at least six days a week for most of the last 25-30 years, so I'm of the "I'll believe it when I see it" school of thought. But he has a point. At the end of the day there has to be some reason to keep working at your job beyond just the paycheck. Hopefully that reason isn't just that another job would suck more! We all hope to do something we're passionate about but part of keeping that passion alive is nurturing some kind of life outside of work.


Precisely. Regardless of how much the macho culture drenches the industry culture (and don't get me wrong, I buy into it too sometimes), _we are still human_. We are not machines, and we need rest to produce optimal results. I love cooking and I love apprenticing under the amazing chef and sous chef who have both taken me under their wings; but some days I just need time away from the kitchen to be a normal human being.

The attitude of "suck it up, that's just how it is" does not belong in a modern thinktank.


----------



## phaedrus (Dec 23, 2004)

Yeah, there are times to "rub some dirt on it" but I think we're gonna see more creativity coming from a new way of thinking and working.


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

I dunno...

Did  Henry Ford only work a 40 hr week?


----------

