Gender Breakdown of Servers
I recently ate at L'Incontro in Astoria, Queens, NY. It was a fantastic meal but was tainted by the fact that there were no female servers. Wanting to give the benefit of the doubt, I inquired whether there were any female servers at all on staff. The response I got was "No, because sometimes the tables had to be moved and the women were not strong enough."
Aren't we past this?
I am reconsidering a return visit to L'Incontro.
(on a positive note, last night I ate at Cyrus in Healdsburg, CA. A first-class restaurant that I'm pleased to say achieved gender equity in the servers.)
Anyone else take note of the gender equity at restaurants? Want to warn me away from places that irresponsibly do not hire women?
Happy holidays,
Sarah
-
Where I am, such a policy would contravene employment anti-discrimination legislation. Quite rightly.
›2 Replies-
-
re: Harters
It depends on how it is set up. If it says something like "must be able to lift 80lbs" then I don't really think there is a problem with it. Plenty of jobs do require heavy lifting and it's less common to see those jobs filled with women. Putting anyone in that position who can't do the lifting is more likely to cause liability issues when the person gets injured.
-
-
-
RetiredChef
Dec 27, 2009 07:51 AM
What about those that don’t hire MEN?????
Whoops everybody else beat me to it.
-
A number of points are in need of clarification in your post: you state that you were informed there were no female servers on staff at the restaurant. Further, that the staff informed you that " the women were not strong enough " (to move tables, apparently). Based on the exact wording "the women" (and not "women"), it would appear that "the women" were at one time hired, but were no longer employed there. So, apparently "the women" were at one point servers (stating the obvious here), but it is unclear as whose decision it was to leave. One scenario could be that _the women_ hired as servers decided on their own that the physical labor entailed in moving heavy tables was not to their liking, and therefore resigned/quit/etc.. And of course another scenario could be that the employer was displeased with his perception of their inability to move heavy tables and/or their (the womens') complaint about having to move heavy tables, and so let them go/fired them/etc.. So, we readers (based on what you wrote, precisely, above) only know that the owners were not against initially hiring _the women_. Without more details, it is difficult to conclude whether "the women" who were no longer there chose to leave or were made to leave. At worst, it is possible that the owners once were inclined to hire women, but once the initial batch of female servers were 'gone' ( on their own, or were forced out), the employer has not hired a new batch of women... Also, what was the gender make-up of the rest of the staff? Were the chefs and kitchen staff composed of men and women both? How about the host/hostess? The bartender(s) and sommelier(s)? The restaurant's accountant(s)? Their dishwasher(s)?, etc, etc? If the majority of these other positions were equally distrubuted by gender and/or had more women than, men, would it still be an issue as specifically regards the servers?? And what if the second restaurant, Cyrus, had _all female servers_, but no female chefs/mangers/dishwashers/, would that still put them ahead of L'Incontro in your estimation?? Happy holidays to you, too...
›1 Reply
