# firing staff



## tomekk (May 29, 2012)

Hello. My name is tom and im new here. I was wondering if any veteran chef's had methods for for firing people. it's one of the hardest thing I've ever had to do and I was wondering if there is any set way to do it that you guys have found the least stressful.
Thanks


----------



## rbandu (Apr 30, 2012)

Separate yourself from personal relationships and look at the business as a whole.  Pull them aside, tell them the issue, and just tell them their employment with you is terminated for that reason.  There's no crying in the kitchen; just keep your personal feelings aside.  If they retort with angry words, tell them to leave the premises immediately or you'll call the police.  Fin.


----------



## tomekk (May 29, 2012)

Thanks for the reply. That's basically what I try to do. Its hard for young chefs that spend so much time with staff outside of work too. Its almost like when you get promoted its easier to live life and be successful at being a chef by disassociating.


----------



## twyst (Jan 22, 2012)

tomekk said:


> Its hard for young chefs that spend so much time with staff outside of work too. Its almost like when you get promoted its easier to live life and be successful at being a chef by disassociating.


Well, IMHO, when you are the chef it's probably best to no longer go out with the guys after work for drinks etc. Every time I have seen chefs who always hang out with their kitchen staff it has always led to problems down the road somewhere. I think disassociating yourself is almost necessary if you want your kitchen to really run to its full potential.


----------



## tomekk (May 29, 2012)

Thank you. as I get older and with my experience as a head, although admittedly limited, I find to run a proper kitchen and make money you gotta stop being so friendly and things like firing are" easier to do"


----------



## duckfat (Aug 7, 2008)

In most cases I ran with the rules of Baseball. Three strikes and your out. I never fired any one with out cause so I never lost any sleep over doing my job. Any one who got canned with less than three strikes did some thing egregious like getting caught stealing etc.

I will suggest you never threaten any one and never touch any one no matter what. Never shut your office door unless you have a witness such as another manager in your office. Never reprimand or fire any one in front of other staff if you can avoid it,

As far as disassociating goes Twyst hit the nail on the head. I'd buy my guys a beer or join them once in a while for A beer. I tried to keep that sort of interaction to events like staff BBQ and Christmas parties.

Dave


----------



## chefhow (Oct 16, 2008)

IMHO you should NEVER associate with staff outside of the building, EVER.  Once you do that the line is crossed and biz gets mixed up with personal, lines are conveluted and what was a biz relationship gets confused for buddies.  It will be easier in the end, when it comes time for reviews, raises, off site events... they always think that since you are "friends" you will get something in return or that you will take care of them.  Its just hard all over, stop it now and move on...

When it came to firing peeps, I always did it BEFORE the shift and in the office, and then escorted them out thru the back door so there was very little chance for a scene.


----------



## chefchrism (May 29, 2012)

Firing people is never easy. Before you do make sure you have a paper trail to back up your reasons for letting that person go, just in case they have disputes and take you to the labour board.

As for socializing with staff I usaully find out where the staff is meeting up and pop in, pay for a round of drinks, thank all the staff for there hard work then leave.


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

For me, "Firing" means immediate dismissal either from theft, violence at the workplace, or some other grave problem. Not enough work to go around, that's "laying off". Every Province/State has different labour laws, in my Prov. it's a 3 mth "probation period" where either party can give one day's notice, and after that, the employer has to cough up 2 weeks salary.

Always make sure you have the employer's backing before firing someone, as they may get stiffed with 2 weeks salary for no work. If firing because of theft, _*make sure you have witnesses*_ other than yourself. Just because YOU saw "X" walk out the door and open the trunk of his car with a tenderloin stuffed down his pants, doesn't neccesarily mean it happened.

Layoffs are tough but have to be done. Make it as short as possible, and make no promises or apologies.

Some people need to get fired but there will be holy (deleted) to pay if they are. I.E. lazy sacks of excrement with a hot-line to the owner/boss. This is where you use the weekly schedule to your advantage. I had this one waitress who worked the 7-3 shift but could never make it to work by 7, always whining about the bus connections. Why bother telling her to take an earlier bus? Smile and nod, and ask her if she wants to come in at 8--but only work until 3. I played this with her until she was only working the minimum 3 hr shift, and when she got her next paycheck she started screaming. Lucky for me, the whole kitchen and foh staff started laughing hysterically, and she was too embarassed to make a scene.

Some people are born with an attitude that "it is written" there is a basic human right for them appear at the workplace 40 hrs/wk and draw a paycheck--anything else would be illegal. It must be written in the constitution or the Geneva Convention or something like that. Had a prep cook like that, Within the first week he showed up to work an hour earlier on my day off, and signed off 1 hr O.T. I took the dude aside and explained that there was no O.T. until I expressly O.K.'d it, and just to make sure, printed that statement on the weekly schedule and got all the staff to sign off under it. Eejit tries the same stunt a week a later and I pull him into my office, shove the schedule with his signature under his nose and tell him, either he can quit or he can be fired, I don't care, but he's out of here today. He huffs and puffs but can't think of anything to say, I escort him out, and as soon as he's out the door he's screaming he's gonna call the cops. And he did. Officer had to come and "investigate", and within a minute, the officer disappears, comes back with the kid into my office, and tells the eejit infront of me that IF there was a law for stupidity AND a nuisance fee, he'd be charged with both.

The world would be a better place without people.......


----------



## twyst (Jan 22, 2012)

Jeez, firing someone in Canada sounds like a hassle!

Lots of states here are fire at will.   You can fire anyone for pretty much anything.


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

This province is a hassle.  Worksafe (Worker's comp board) just passed a royal decree stating that employers are now responsible for any domestic violence that their employees may endure at home.  We're supposed to load the information off the website on how to recognize signs (at the workplace, of course) and what questions we can ask and how to ask them.  Oh...and the fine schedule if we don't intervene  Hey!  Someone's gotta be responsible. 

(Deleted)!!!!!.. Now what's the first (deleted) word in "Domestic violence?....


----------



## kingfarvito (May 7, 2012)

I know I'm just a line cook, but as the person you're firing it seems there's always a reason when someone is let go. If someone is being fired either A) they know they were doing something that would get them fired if they were caught, or B) they were warned they were messing up well in advance. If you're stuck laying someone off let them know whats going on and why its going on.


----------



## duckfat (Aug 7, 2008)

Twyst said:


> Jeez, firing someone in Canada sounds like a hassle!
> 
> Lots of states here are fire at will. You can fire anyone for pretty much anything.


I don't know how many states are "right to Work" states but if you work in one it's very easy to terminate. In other states especially unionized states in the North it's pretty much just like FP described.

You do have to protect yourself no matter what state your in.

Firing to me is any time I have to let some one go. Other than that I can weed out the weak links by making them not want to work for me. /img/vbsmilies/smilies/biggrin.gif

No UE claims or grief when they quit.

Dave


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

kingfarvito said:


> I know I'm just a line cook, but as the person you're firing it seems there's always a reason when someone is let go. If someone is being fired either A) they know they were doing something that would get them fired if they were caught, or B) they were warned they were messing up well in advance. If you're stuck laying someone off let them know whats going on and why its going on.


Absolutely! I think I made it clear in my posts about that.

Except......Some people can't admit that they do wrong. Catch then stealing red handed, and they argue and call the Labour board for "wrongful dismissal" on the grounds that they didn't like your hairstyle or that because the incident happened on a Monday. You can warn and get them to sign off on policies and when they mess up, they will still argue on grounds that what they signed was printed with Times New Roman font and not Wingbats like they normally have at home--so it doesn't count.

In regards to laying off, usually the order comes from the Boss, and you don't have advance warning. If it is slow and not enough work, most people should smell that and start making preparations.


----------



## Guest (May 30, 2012)

I think we need to clarify some terms here, such as firing, lay offs, termination and probationary period.

I don't find firing hard at all, if I need to fire someone, there was always a documented period leading up to it, unless there was violence in the work place, theft/criminal activity, drunkenness or some other gross violation that made it happen on the spot (once in 8 years). Documentation is the key...
If you are laying folks off due to a lack of business, each state/province has guidelines/requirements, follow those and you should be fine
If someone fails their probationary period or just isn't good enopugh, your right to terminate is almost absolute. there are exceptions but generally you are fine here.
Never fire anyone publicly (if at all possibe), this needs to be a private matter witnessed only as required
Always fire at the jobsite, before their shift, and never give someone notice of firing and let them work afterwards, its just a bad idea
Be generous (20%) with severance over what is required, the only legal remedy they really have is to sue for more money and that extra $$ offered upfront turns lots of lawyers away. I've seen this too many times, you can fight it later, but severance is very cheap when your lawyer costs you $250.00+ an hour

Its all part of the job...MB


----------



## foodpump (Oct 10, 2005)

Mike Benninger said:


> , the only legal remedy they really have is to sue for more money and that extra $$ offered upfront turns lots of lawyers away. I've seen this too many times, you can fight it later, but severance is very cheap when your lawyer costs you $250.00+ an hour
> Its all part of the job...MB


I have great difficulty with the "sue" and "lawyer" bit. Now, in my neck of the woods, when there is a labour dispute, _it can not be taken to small claims or Provincial court _, it must be dealt with by the Labour Board. Lawyers need not apply

The L.B. here in B.C. operates--no it breathes---, it holds itself upright with the motto "The Onus Is on The Employer".

That means the employer is assumed guilty of any allegation filed against him Automatically. All methods of work done by the L.B.are based on this motto.

That means that the employer must protect himself, at his cost, with no compensation if and when cleared of any wrongdoing, or any chance of acknowledgment that the allegation levied against him was false in the first place.

That means the L.B. does not need to demand any hard evidence (pay stubs, work schedules, letters, etc) from the employee, a verbal complaint is good enough.

That means that any employer's records--mainly time clock cards, sign-in sheets, etc.-- need not apply to the case if they negatively impact the L.B.'s case--basically if the timeclock card agrees with the employer's claim, it is ruled as non-admissable, and if it helps the L.B.'s case it is used . In many cases the employee's "handwritten notes" that he supposedly keeps at home trumps the employer's time clock or sign in sheet in disputes. Some hotels and casinos now have time clocks that need an employee's fingerprint to punch in and out, which can be used by the employer to cover their butt, but many smaller employers can't afford such devices.

That means that the L.B. with the odds greatly stacked in favour with them, will first contact the employer--not via e-mail or letter--heaven forbid, ink and paper records? No, they call up and ask as many details verbally as possible, and continue to call, never writing or leaving a paper trail *unless you are smarter and specifically only answer questions via e-mail or snail mail.*

That means that when the L.B. rules in the dispute, it will always be in favour of the employee even if all evidence is in your favour. The L.B. is gambling heavily that with fines of $500 and under it is simply not worth the employer's effort to fight the ruling.

That means you have opportunity to challenge this decision and must do so within 14 days of the ruling, before the little (deleted) garnishee your bank account.

That means the little (deleted) have lost the case and have nothing to show for it, so they go back over the evidence and find some totally unrelated detail to get you on (ie lunch breaks) and proceed to fine you for that.

That means you fight that one, and will only pay up if they acknowledge the first allegation was false. Of course, the little (deleted) can't do that.

That means............ Well, I'm proud to say I am a Mom and Pop outfit, and only hire staff when absolutely neccesary, and only then for a few weeks at a time

D.A.M.H.I.K.T. ...................


----------



## petemccracken (Sep 18, 2008)

So, FoodPump, when did you move to the PDRV? /img/vbsmilies/smilies/talker.gif


----------



## Guest (May 31, 2012)

Hey FoodCamp, sadly it sounds like you have plowed this field before, sadly, most reading here likley have...

I can only speak from my Ontario experience, and mine is honestly very limited, I have had very a issues in my time, then I went private so i only hire casually or from an outside agency.

I have several friends who own real places, ($5M+ in sales), so I use them as my Ontario example. One of them (I was just there as temp staff for a few shifts to help) had a case 8-9 months ago of a longer term line cook, long off probation who was simply a complete pain in the ass to all and sundry around him. He had good game on the line and knew his stuff, but was such a sullen and miserable P.I.T.A. for everyone else that no one, cooks, servers, catering staff, (even me in my very limited capacity), basicly anyone wanted to shove a knife in his ribs.

My owner-friend actually told him, with me and his bar manager present to to either quit such a dick or find another job, with 3 written examples of why he was a dick. He grew up for a few weeks and then slumped back into old ways, to the point where he started yelling at the salad guy one night to "STOP USING MY FU***ING SALT!! in the middle of Saturday service, loud enough that I heard it while I happened to be sitting in the bar after a job 20 feet away.

That was it...head chef was there, pulled him off the line and fired him on the spot for gross insubordination, told him to pack up, go home. They would pay the rest of his week, and send him his last check and holiday pay, and get lost. He was there 3 years, they gave him 2 months severance, far more than legally required to just get him out of there. A month later, the letter comes from a lawyer who thought it was unlawful blah, blah, blah, etc...my guy lawyers up ($250.00 per hour) and says "come and get me"...a few snotty letters were exchanged and to the best of my limited knowledge nothing has happened since. My guy is almost 30 years in the biz, 5 places over that time, all money makers and a true stud in the biz.

The best solution??? I can't say, but I count this guy as one of my mentors, a sometime supplier when needed and a guy with 30+ years in...


----------



## nomnom (Aug 7, 2010)

I've been managing a kitchen for about a year and I've had to fire two people.

The first guy always had some excuse for coming in late if even at all. I gave him two warnings and then before a shift told him he wasn't needed anymore. Being down a dishwasher can be tough on busy weeks.

The second guy was a great cook but didn't fit real well in our kitchen. Butted heads with him alot and it all ended in him telling me to go F myself during a busy service because I asked him to do dishes. I told him to please leave and to not worry about coming in that I'd get his shifts covered.

I think that as long as you are able to handle it calmly and you have the paper. In the end you have to remember what you did was for the good of the place. Chances are the person is weighing the place down or screwing things up. Bad egg is a bad egg.


----------



## chefross (May 5, 2010)

What's difficult is when the "house" has no formal employee handbook that describes what is expected of the worker. Even then, few read the manual, so when push comes to shove the person has no clue.


----------



## chefedb (Apr 3, 2010)

More the reason why everything today has to be documented.


----------



## chefhow (Oct 16, 2008)

Maryland is a "right to work" state and as such you can be terminated for ANYTHING at ANY TIME.


----------



## someday (Aug 15, 2003)

chefhow said:


> Maryland is a "right to work" state and as such you can be terminated for ANYTHING at ANY TIME.


That's not great advice, sorry to say. I think you may be confusing the term "right to work" with the term "at will employment."

Also, you should probably note, that firing someone for SOME things, such as race, gender, age, disability etc. is illegal, even in an at will state and can lead to lawsuits. Even in an at will state, it is probably good practice to formally document incidents or, at the very least, write out a detailed report citing the reasons why the person is being let go. Unless there is something egregious taking place (theft, dangerous behavior, drugs/alcohol, etc) this is standard/good practice.


----------



## chefedb (Apr 3, 2010)

No  Florida is also a right to work state  even if you request arbatration


----------



## duckfat (Aug 7, 2008)

Someday said:


> I think you may be confusing the term "right to work" with the term "at will employment."
> 
> Also, you should probably note, that firing someone for SOME things, such as race, gender, age, disability etc. is illegal, even in an at will state and can lead to lawsuits.


I don't think most of us are confused at all. In a right to work state l can fire any one, any time for any reason.

Period.

You can persue a claim in the state courts but you won't prevail. If you want to file a federal lawsuit then that's another matter. Any idea what the legal bill is for that?

Yes it's still a good idea to document every thing.

As far as severance pay goes I'd never offer it but I have no idea about Canadian law. What do you plan to do once you offer severance and the employee refuses because it's not enough $$? That seems like an admission of wrongful discharge. I can't imagine why any one would offer severance pay if your terminating employment with cause.

Dave


----------



## someday (Aug 15, 2003)

DuckFat said:


> I don't think most of us are confused at all. In a right to work state l can fire any one, any time for any reason.
> 
> Period.
> 
> ...


I don't understand what you are saying. Of course, as a business owner/manager, you CAN fire someone for anything...just as I COULD go out and shoot someone with a shotgun. I should just be prepared to face the legal consequences of that action.

Again, "right to work" and "at will" are two different things. Right to work states basically just forbid unionization and employers can't force employees to join unions, etc. Every state is considered an at will state, so basically anyone in the country can be fired for "no reason." The term no reason is in quotes because the vast majority of people aren't fired for no good reason.

I think you are confusing your terms. Again, right to work and at will are two different things. Go look it up if you don't believe me.

Firing someone that is part of a protected class (i.e. disabled, minority race, gay, religion, age etc) for that reason is illegal. So if you fired John Smith because he was African American, that would be illegal. The hard part would be John Smith proving in court that you fired him because he was black, since no person in their right mind would list that as the reason they were fired.

So when you say that you CAN fire anyone at anytime, this may be true. But there are certain circumstances in which the firing is illegal and subject to wrongful termination and discrimination lawsuits. Just broadly stating that anyone can be fired at anytime for any reason (and putting it all in caps) can be careless and I want people that come here to read these posts to be informed. Hopefully these issues don't come up too often for our members.


----------



## duckfat (Aug 7, 2008)

Quote:


Someday said:


> Again, "right to work" and "at will" are two different things. Right to work states basically just forbid unionization and employers can't force employees to join unions, etc. Every state is considered an at will state, so basically anyone in the country can be fired for "no reason." Go look it up if you don't believe me.


 I don't need to go get my googlefu on thanks.

Every state is the USA is not a right to work state. Less than half are IIR.

You may want to do a little research if you lack experience as an employer in one of those states.

After that perhaps you will then understand that right to work states are in essence "at will" states.

Your confusing two terms that with in the purview of this conversation mean the very same thing.

I have no idea what you are talking about in regards to posting in caps or are you so confused your not even responding to the correct person?

In a right to work state you have no state claim what so ever for being discharged for any reason that's not explicitly against the law.

Even then in many cases you are SOL. The need for documentation works both ways.

Not all states have the same laws so in some states you might have a federal claim assuming you can establish appropriate damages and pay the legal bill. That still doesn't mean you will prevail.

Savvy?

Dave


----------



## chefboy2160 (Oct 13, 2001)

If you have ever worked for a union house as management you would have a better understanding of documentation and the steps required. Nevada is a right to work state but most Hotel /Casinos are Union in Las Vegas while in Reno Only Circus Circus and the Hilton had unions in them.

I was scared to death of becoming a restaurant chef in one of these places because the employees always tried to intimadate the new chef with the its not my job BS. I learned through trial and error that the union book works both ways and I must say my 4 years in a union house taught me that documentation is your best friend.

To the OP just remember that you realy do not fire a staff member as you have went through the process and guidlines provided by your HR department so no bad feelings as you can not change other peoples behavior. Good Luck, Doug...................


----------



## someday (Aug 15, 2003)

DuckFat said:


> Quote:
> 
> I don't need to go get my googlefu on thanks.
> 
> ...


Reading comprehension problems much? I said all states are AT WILL states...not right to work states. You need to make sure you read and understand my post before you respond to it, please. Explain to me how the two terms are "the very same thing." I'm waiting.

AT WILL and RIGHT TO WORK are two different things. I'll say it for the 3rd time. I'll even wikipedia it for you to make it clear:

From Wikipedia: A "right-to-work" law is a statute that prohibits union security agreements, or agreements between labor unions and employers that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a condition of employment, either before or after hiring. Right-to-work laws exist in twenty-three U.S. states, mostly in the southern and western United States. Such laws are allowed under the 1947 federal Taft-Hartley Act.

From Wikipedia: *At-will employment* is a doctrine of American law that defines an employment relationship in which either party can break the relationship with no liability, provided there was no express contract for a definite term governing the employment relationship and that the employer does not belong to a collective bargaining group (i.e., has not recognized a union). Under this legal doctrine:

"any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.[sup][1][/sup]
Now, before you chimed in with your use of the wrong phrase, I was simply responding to chefhow's suggestion that anyone can be fired at anytime for anything as being too broad and frankly untrue. I wished to correct the phrasing since anyone trying to do research or learn more about better start by, at the least, knowing what they should look up. There are several "reasons" that an owner or manager can fire someone and it can be illegal, even in an at will state. Burden of proof generally lies with the fired employee. So yes, you are right about that.

I'm done with this thread. I just wanted to make sure that someone who maybe saw the fired for "any reason, any time" had a bit more information than that. General blanket statements like that can lead to bad things happening in the future, that's all.

PS: I googled this and will now repost. 
[h1]How to Compare the Right to Work with Employment At Will[/h1]
By Ruth Mayhew, eHow Contributor

Comparing right-to-work laws to the employment at-will doctrine is like comparing apples to oranges, yet an overwhelming number of people use the terms interchangeably because they don't understand the difference between the concepts. Clear definitions with examples help employers and employees understand. The right-to-work law is about employee rights during an employment relationship. The employment at-will doctrine has to do with employer and employee rights in ending an employment relationship.

[h3] [/h3]


----------



## duckfat (Aug 7, 2008)

> I was simply responding to chefhow's suggestion that anyone can be fired at anytime for anything as being too broad and frankly untrue. I wished to correct the phrasing since anyone trying to do research or learn more about better start by, at the least, knowing what they should look up. There are several "reasons" that an owner or manager can fire someone and it can be illegal, even in an at will state. Burden of proof generally lies with the fired employee. So yes, you are right about that.


 I don't really think that what ChefHow posted was "untrue". Perhaps a few of us have been a bit broad in the most literal sense but what's the net difference in the context of this thread?

An at will employee in a right to work state can be terminated pretty much at any time for any reason.

There are of course always exceptions. Chefboy hit on that. While I have never worked in Vegas, Disney was a part union house in a right to work state. Hourly employees had the option of joining the union or not. We followed company policy.

While it may seem sardonic I assure you it's not meant to be when I say boots on the ground experience is not the same as theory from Wikipedia. This is why most of us are in agreement. If you really want to delve off into that more I'd suggest searching the pages of law firms that may offer a bit more of a real world picture.

In short while I may be prohibited from firing you in a right to work state because of your race, I'm not prohibited from firing your (insert descriptive) on the spot (irrespective of your race) If your Chef's coat is dirty or your late no matter how long you have worked for me. I haven't looked at this in a while but IIR an employer in a right to work state can also demote you or decrease your salary with little or no notice.

In some northern states I can end up owning your late, dirty jacket wearing, crack smoking racial rear end after a specific time frame like it or not unless I have rock solid documentation. I certainly won't be getting rid of you with ease......Unless of course your position has been eliminated or you were foolish enough to sign an at will agreement. /img/vbsmilies/smilies/biggrin.gif

Earlier you posted "Every state is considered an at will state, so basically anyone in the country can be fired for "no reason."

Since we are taking such great pains to be as succinct as possible you have over looked countless professionals that work under contract with employment covenants. If you think they are all at will employees that can be terminated with out cause then you have much to learn grasshopper.

Dave


----------



## chefedb (Apr 3, 2010)

In Florida as has been said Right to work means no notice right now, on the spot  ,no excuse needed,  no reason needed, I have you escorted out of the building

     Want to sue me, go ahead the law here  in Florida  is on my side .Fed law is something else, but you had better have a lot of $ and a great attorney.  Canadian law is great in Canada not here, same applies to Texas


----------



## chefhow (Oct 16, 2008)

We have fired many a plant employee and even lab techs for something as minor as bringing a cell phone into the building or being late for a shift with no prior offenses and no warning.


----------



## rbandu (Apr 30, 2012)

NY here.  Whereas I have the right and ability to fire someone for looking at me the wrong way...it still doesn't make it ethical, etc.  Talk to the person, explain you're going to fire him if things don't change....that kind of thing.  Documentation is key, because if you're firing him for being a nutjob, chances are he's going to try and come back at you legally.  As things are right now (in NY at least)..."haha mother****er you just lost your job for being a douche." isn't a great way to go.  Once you enter the workplace, we're all adults, and will be treated with the due respect.  Once that respect is violated through either your actions or someone else's, $hit's going down.  There's no stopping it.  But keep that line of respect and things stay in order.


----------



## chefedb (Apr 3, 2010)

Chefhow !

In a plant setting possibly you must be that strict . I let them explain and if a valid reason would not let them  go. Everyone makes a mistake now and then


----------



## someday (Aug 15, 2003)

Here goes.

You are misusing two terms. Period. No ifs, ands or buts. At will employment, the idea of, basically, "I can quit leave my job with no prior notice, and you can fire/let me go with no prior notice," i.e. "I can fire you for anything if I want to for no reason," is a different law/idea than the "right to work" state, which has to do with unions, and prohibiting them. THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS! One doesn't have anything to do with the other.

The two terms are commonly interchanged and misused. It is important to differentiate between the two. People read chef talk for information, and if someone were to read this thread and want to learn more about the law on hiring/firing practices, etc, they should know, at least, what terms to look up and what the difference is.

If someone wrote a post and stated that lemons are orange and oranges are yellow, I'm sure we'd correct them, yes?


> While it may seem sardonic I assure you it's not meant to be when I say boots on the ground experience is not the same as theory from Wikipedia. This is why most of us are in agreement. If you really want to delve off into that more I'd suggest searching the pages of law firms that may offer a bit more of a real world picture.


OK, listen. Maybe it is you who should do a little research. It took me 2 minutes of clicking on google to prove to you that you are using the wrong terms for stuff. If YOU want to learn more, I suggest you start by possibly learning the difference between the two. 
I don't understand what point you are trying to make, other than agreeing with me. So....thanks? By the way, I fixed it for you in bold. 


> Earlier you posted "Every state is considered an at will state, so basically anyone in the country can be fired for "no reason."
> 
> Since we are taking such great pains to be as succinct as possible you have over looked countless professionals that work under contract with employment covenants. If you think they are all at will employees that can be terminated with out cause then you have much to learn grasshopper.


I haven't overlooked anyone working under contract. People under contract, or part of a collective bargaining group (i.e. a union) are exempted from the "at will" law and therefore do not fall under its umbrella. But you're right, my statement was broad and I shouldn't have assumed you would understand what I was talking about. Sorry. Also, please, don't call me grasshopper, especially if you are trying to prove a point and you are wrong.

I also put "no reason" in quotes because usually people aren't fired for no reason.

And hey, it's OK to admit you are wrong. It's how we all learn. Thats why cheftalk is great, cause we can all have a place to come discuss things and learn from each other. 


> In Florida as has been said Right to work means no notice right now, on the spot ,no excuse needed, no reason needed, I have you escorted out of the building
> 
> Want to sue me, go ahead the law here in Florida is on my side .Fed law is something else, but you had better have a lot of $ and a great attorney. Canadian law is great in Canada not here, same applies to Texas


Again, that is not what right to work means. Please, just do a quick google search for "Florida, right to work" and you will see some stuff come up about labor unions, etc, but nothing about hiring/firing practices.

I'm sorry to be a stickler but I think it's really important that we use the right terms when we talk about this stuff. If we are going to offer advice to people, as a group (meaning chef talk) we should strive to be the best and make sure we use proper terms so that when people research/read old topics they know how to go further. Hypothetically, how can I take advice from people who don't even get the terms right about what they are talking about?

All right, I'm about purple in the face from this, and I think the thread has veered off topic enough.


----------



## chefedb (Apr 3, 2010)

There are places in Florida that do not even recognize labor unions. In fact I know a few painters and sheet rock setters who are non union and wont join one simply because the union pay  scale is less then what they make.. As far as my statemnt of right now, on the spot I have seen it done over and over. So therefore I go by practical application and actually seeing it done. Can't remember anyone who got hired back so far. (And thats since I have been here (1988).New York was different in the way things were handled.


----------



## duckfat (Aug 7, 2008)

> Originally Posted by *Someday*
> I don't understand what point you are trying to make, other than agreeing with me.


ahhhh but just because you don't understand doesn't make every one else wrong.

I'm glad it finally sunk in (perhaps?) that you realize what we are all saying is in essence the very same thing. While there are differences in legal doctrine right to work states often have labor laws that are far more favorable to employers. Your base argument seems to be that all states are equal in this regard which leaves me to wonder how many states (if any) you've run a kitchen and have been responsible for employee termination. Why do you think auto manufactures and companies like Boeing are moving plants to right to work states?

The combination of an at will employee in a right to work state creates a very favorable and profitable environment for employers.

Even for those with unions.

If you really think that in every state you can let any one go at any time for any reason after their probationary period then you've either been mislead, ill-informed or simply lack experience. Instead of trying to educate every one via Google or Wikipedia at least consider taking in what not one, but several Chef's with decades of combined experience are trying to convey to you.


Someday said:


> But you're right, my statement was broad


So basically you made the same error in posting an overly broad statement as those who you are trying so hard to correct. The bottom line is that what you posted was inacurate by your own standards. Soap boxes ........ they can be slippery!
[hr][/hr]
Quote:

Originally Posted by *Someday*

Every state is considered an at will state, so basically anyone in the country can be fired for "no reason."
[hr][/hr]
Pop quiz....Which state makes this inaccurate even if we exempt contract employees?

Hint; In the words of the late great Frank Zappa

"I'm gonna move to Montana and raise a little dental floss". 
[hr][/hr]
Quote:

Originally Posted by *Someday*

And hey, it's OK to admit you are wrong. It's how we all learn. Thats why cheftalk is great, cause we can all have a place to come discuss things and learn from each other.
[hr][/hr]
I agree. So lets both accept that and put this thread back on the rails. /img/vbsmilies/smilies/cool.gif

Dave


----------



## someday (Aug 15, 2003)

My base argument isn't that all states are equal. In fact, if you actually read and understood my posts you would probably know that. My base argument is that you, and several other people, have misused the term "right to work" and confused it with "at will." That is all.

You said this:


> If you really think that in every state you can let any one go at any time for any reason after their probationary period then you've either been mislead, ill-informed or simply lack experience. Instead of trying to educate every one via Google or Wikipedia at least consider taking in what not one, but several Chef's with decades of combined experience are trying to convey to you.


You seem to think that I said anyone can be fired for no reason. I don't think that. In fact, I think the opposite of that. You are using this one sentence I wrote-- "Every state is considered an at will state, so basically anyone in the country can be fired for "no reason" out of a whole set of paragraphs I wrote about the dangers of simplifying statements like that. If you want to take that once sentence, quote it in your post, and then accuse me of being to broad, while ignoring the mountain of follow up sentences I wrote in that post, and later posts, that expound on my idea, then you fail at arguing. Taking out one sentence and using that as some sort of evidence based "GOTCHA!" moment is misleading. I'll go ahead and quote MYSELF on that statement, and if you take the time to read it, will see that you agree with me. So accusing me of "being too broad" by just using that one quote is, again, misleading. I go on about it at length actually:


> I was simply responding to chefhow's suggestion that anyone can be fired at anytime for anything as being too broad and frankly untrue.





> There are several "reasons" that an owner or manager can fire someone and it can be illegal, even in an at will state





> Firing someone that is part of a protected class (i.e. disabled, minority race, gay, religion, age etc) for that reason is illegal. So if you fired John Smith because he was African American, that would be illegal. The hard part would be John Smith proving in court that you fired him because he was black, since no person in their right mind would list that as the reason they were fired.
> 
> So when you say that you CAN fire anyone at anytime, this may be true. But there are certain circumstances in which the firing is illegal and subject to wrongful termination and discrimination lawsuits. Just broadly stating that anyone can be fired at anytime for any reason (and putting it all in caps) can be careless and I want people that come here to read these posts to be informed. Hopefully these issues don't come up too often for our members.


Please, read my whole posts before deciding what to quote me on and argue with me about. In fact, my first post in this thread was taking issue with someone doing what you seem to think I was doing, and that is making a broad statement about the ability to fire anyone at anytime. My INITIAL post to this thread was a direct response to that mis-information.

The main point I'm trying to convey to you is that you have misused and interchanged the term "at will" and "right to work." If anything needs to be "sunk in" its you understanding my basic argument. Thats what the wikipedia quoting was all about. I didn't and don't want this to become a discussion on the nitty gritty of unions, and labor laws, etc. I just wanted to make sure that you, everyone else, and people in the future who might read this post/thread use the correct terminology when referring to "right to work" and "at will." Since they are different, and you (and several others) used the incorrect term for what you meant.

I also wrote that I didn't understand what point you were trying to make, not because I didn't understand what you were saying, but why you were saying it. You basically said the same things I said a post or two above the one you posted (and as evidenced in my multiple self-quotes above)....so why are you using something we seemingly agree on to prove your point? That's what I didn't understand. We clear?

For example, if I wanted to have a discussion with you about the differences between citrus fruit, we could talk all day about sugar content versus acid content, aroma of limes versus aroma of lemons, which are best for what applications, blah blah blah. But if, for example, you keep calling lemons oranges, that is something we should clear up before we move forward. You want to talk about sugar and acid, I want to make sure you stop calling lemons oranges.

I have no doubt in your experience or practical applications in this matter. I recognize that you have more "real world" experience dealing with this stuff than I do. You may have done it in different states, with different laws, etc. But, for the love of God, please make sure you use the right term. That is all. If nothing else, it makes stubborn younger people such as myself more prone to listen to you if you get the basics correct. Call a lemon a lemon.

So, you've addressed about 3 sentences of what I wrote. If you want to take small snippets of the wall of text that I wrote and only address that, while ignoring the other, larger issues that we are having, than I can't help you. You have yet to comment on the whole "at will" vs "right to work" thing, and if you choose to ignore 90% of what I wrote, and take the other 10% out of context in a failed attempt at proving me "wrong," then I guess there isn't much I can do at this point.

Sorry everyone, I truly didn't mean to hijack this thread. Like I said, I just think we should all be on the same page in terms of making sure we call things what they are. I'm actually a little embarrassed that it has gone on like this. Truly sorry.


----------



## petemccracken (Sep 18, 2008)

Right to work = an *employee* right to seek work *without* being forced to join an employee bargaining unit.

At will employment = an *employer* right to hire and fire employees without cause.

ADA, FMLA, EEOC, ICE, and a host of other Federal, State, and local agencies that grant or restrict both employer and employee rights.

In fact, within the USA, neither the "right to work" nor the "at will" employment may be applied without a multitude of far reaching caveats, controls, and restrictions, beginning with minimum wages, workman's compensation, State and Federal unemployment insurance, State disability insurance and extending into protected classes, inter alia national origin, gender, age, religion, disabilities, marital or family status, etc. Oh, and Do not forget the I-9 compliance requirements, *EVERY PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYEE IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION THAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO SEEK EMPLOYMENT *in accordance with Federal law.

If you really have a question, you are best advised to seek the assistance of a lawyer specializing in employment practices and law *BEFORE* you hire the first employee and definitely before you prepare an employee handbook


----------



## mjwein (Apr 1, 2009)

It's never easy letting any staff go. Regardless of what the circumstances are, it's any chef/manager/boss' hardest task. Go into the meeting prepared with all the reasons and rationales written down so you can lead the meeting in a professional manor. The few times I've had to let someone go, I brought in a third party to sit in. It helps to defuse any ugliness that can arise when someone is told they're fired. Keep as much emotion out of the discussion as possible because when it comes down to it, it's business and as a chef, you must be the chief of the kitchen and do what's best for the business. Good luck!


----------



## duckfat (Aug 7, 2008)

Someday said:


> I wrote-- "Every state is considered an at will state, so basically anyone in the country can be fired for "no reason". If you want to take that once sentence, quote it in your post, and then accuse me of being to broad, while ignoring the mountain of follow up sentences I wrote in that post, and later posts, that expound on my idea, then you fail at arguing.


You seem determined to to over look the fact that we agree on far more than not.

I think we all understand right to work and at will employment are two different legal doctrines.

Yes there are statutory exceptions.

We agreed on that well up-thread.

There are also states that don't recognize any of the at will exceptions like Florida.

In reference to your statement "Every state is considered an at will state, so basically anyone in the country can be fired for "no reason"

I think you will be very hard pressed to suggest that statement is not every bit as broad and far reaching (not to mention inaccurate) as the posts you are railing against.

In fact you already admitted your statement was "broad" while at the same time lamenting about another chef speaking ......too broadly.

Capiche?

So before you decide to write a diatribe correcting several others perhaps it would be wise to make sure your own posts are accurate.

In either event you've over looked a plethora of exceptions to your statement and you missed an entire state.

That seems a titch more egregious than simply juxtaposing two terms.

Pete is spot on about hand books. This is what lawyers are for especially if you are in a state that recognizes express or implied contracts as an exception to the at will doctrine.

Dave


----------



## rbandu (Apr 30, 2012)

Damn.  You just got served.

Gonna correct Dave's italian though, it's "Capice?"  *runs away*


----------



## duckfat (Aug 7, 2008)

RBandu said:


> Gonna correct Dave's italian though, it's "Capice?"


Hey not according to Wikipedia and they're always right! /img/vbsmilies/smilies/lol.gif

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/capiche

But it is a darn good example of how more than one response can be correct.

Dave


----------



## rbandu (Apr 30, 2012)

Hahaha, respect, but I've worked for too many italian chefs.  There's no "h" in italian.  I've had a man go so far as to write me a note with his instructions, all in italian, followed by "capice?"  There are indeed variations, "capico, capicee"...no "h".  Gonna stand firm here.


----------



## chefross (May 5, 2010)

My sister is a law librarian and over the course of her years has learned, that in fact, an employer is under no obligation to keep an employee and can terminate at discretion for any reason.

Even with rules and laws in place to suggest otherwise...............the bottom line is just that.

Now this forum suggests otherwise?  I'm confused.


----------



## chefedb (Apr 3, 2010)

I  AGREE.  Again the employee has the option to go or do to the employer whatever legal or government action he or she thinks correct. You better however have the proof and the resources and the time  to back up  whatever claim you feel you have. Otherwise you are a loser before you even start.


----------

