Chicago Sandwich Shop Emails Employees On Dec. 23rd To Say Merry Christmas And You're All Fired


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 468 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

.
The email:

1. Due to increased competition and losses, ownership has decided to
consider remodeling and reconcepting the store at 600 West Chicago Ave.
2. The store is closing, effective tomorrow, December 23, 2013 for an unknown period of time for this remodeling and reconcepting.
3. All staff is terminated, effective Monday, December 23, 2013.
4. All staff may apply for unemployment, if eligible.
5. Return any keys and Company property to Will Ravert at 600 West
Chicago Avenue on Monday, December 23, 2014 during normal business hours.
6. Payroll will be processed as usual this week and paid on Friday,
December 27, 2013.
7. Keep an eye out for the grand opening of the new store.
8. Ownership appreciates your service and wish you well in your new
endeavors.

#7 is the best. You Still Have A Chance, re-apply!

.


Apparently their CEO is regretful of the way things were handled and is giving all terminated employees an extra week's pay as a sort of severance package.

Link


"I have eaten at this place, and everyone there was covered in tattoos and piercings. It's no wonder they couldn't find jobs paying them a good wage because most organizations requiring professional dress and grooming never would have hired them, unless it was some second hand clothing store in Wicker Park, the hipster enclave of Chicago.

So they picketed and fought for higher wages, now they are out of a job. Would it have been better to make the lower wage and still have an on-going job? Or are they better off with no job? Personally, I would have kept the lower wage, and then made a plan to get myself a better paying job or a second job to improve my living standard. But I guess the tactics I used on myself when coming out of high school and college are "dated" and "out of touch"."


14 people marked this as a favorite.
kaboom! wrote:

"I have eaten at this place, and everyone there was covered in tattoos and piercings. It's no wonder they couldn't find jobs paying them a good wage because most organizations requiring professional dress and grooming never would have hired them, unless it was some second hand clothing store in Wicker Park, the hipster enclave of Chicago.

So they picketed and fought for higher wages, now they are out of a job. Would it have been better to make the lower wage and still have an on-going job? Or are they better off with no job? Personally, I would have kept the lower wage, and then made a plan to get myself a better paying job or a second job to improve my living standard. But I guess the tactics I used on myself when coming out of high school and college are "dated" and "out of touch"."

tattoos and the like do not means someone is not deserving of job with good pay or basic human decency. Unless there was something up with your service or the food, this is sounds more like intolerance of people with weird piercings and the like than any deficiency on their part. Stick to McDonald's and subway and the like if you want a uniform appearance and guaranteed low pay in your servers.


No, it is just that major companies don't hire people with exposed tattoos or piercings not in the earlobe to work customer facing jobs.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I prefer to not buy my food from some slacker with his face covered in shrapnel....it's their choice to get tats and piercings and it's my choice to go somewhere else

Silver Crusade

15 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Unklbuck wrote:
I prefer to not buy my food from some slacker with his face covered in shrapnel....it's their choice to get tats and piercings and it's my choice to go somewhere else

Does food taste different when served by people with tattoo and piercings?


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Unklbuck wrote:
I prefer to not buy my food from some slacker with his face covered in shrapnel....it's their choice to get tats and piercings and it's my choice to go somewhere else
Does food taste different when served by people with tattoo and piercings?

Good and bad taste is influenced as much by mood as the actual food itself. Some people have visceral reactions to piercings and tattoos which can alter their disposition or set the stomach at ill-ease. This very much could alter the perceived taste of the food.

I'm not saying that it is right or wrong, but it is a real thing. And it can have a direct impact on sales, which is why most major companies won't hire employees with tats or piercings not in the earlobe for customer facing jobs.

Liberty's Edge

10 people marked this as a favorite.

Being tatted and pierced is a choice. It flies in some places, it doesn't in others. But if someone does make that choice, they shouldn't b!@$# when they are taken less seriously.

It's like when friends of mine would get hassled by the cops because of how they dressed, hairstyles, tats, whatever. Was it right? Nope. Does it matter? Nope. If you do something to get attention (and, seriously, most people in the tat and piercing scene are attention whores - if you don't know my background, please don't debate me on this), don't be upset if some of that attention isn't what you wanted.

I'd probably be safe assuming my past is a bit more checkered than the average Paizo poster, and I've done a lot of crazy stuff, but, until the day I was arrested, I NEVER got hassled by the cops. Why? Because I take pains to look as average as possible. I KNOW how perception works, and I would use that to my advantage.

The universe owes no one anything. If you want to have some things, get treated certain ways, and have people react to you a certain way, play the game. If you choose to step outside of the norm, be willing to accept that some doors will be closed to you.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Unklbuck wrote:
I prefer to not buy my food from some slacker with his face covered in shrapnel....it's their choice to get tats and piercings and it's my choice to go somewhere else
Does food taste different when served by people with tattoo and piercings?

Good and bad taste is influenced as much by mood as the actual food itself. Some people have visceral reactions to piercings and tattoos which can alter their disposition or set the stomach at ill-ease. This very much could alter the perceived taste of the food.

I'm not saying that it is right or wrong, but it is a real thing. And it can have a direct impact on sales, which is why most major companies won't hire employees with tats or piercings not in the earlobe for customer facing jobs.

This. I have worked in the industry most of my life, and I invariably make more money than co-workers who look like they just stepped off the set of HellRaiser.

But, to the point of the thread, whooptie-do. The place shut down, people lost their jobs. That's life. Maybe the tatted and pierced (and, I'm sure, wonderfully well adjusted and cheery) staff turned off enough customers that they went elsewhere. Quick reality check: quite a few people who self mutilate are also dicks. Not the most inviting, really.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Usually when Grand Magus posts something, it's just copy-and-pasted from elsewhere, but I can't seem to find anything about this place closing due to pierced and tatted employees.

Is there some connection I am missing, or did you all just turn into a bunch of fuddy-duddy Andy Rooneys?


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Usually when Grand Magus posts something, it's just copy-and-pasted from elsewhere, but I can't seem to find anything about this place closing due to pierced and tatted employees.

Is there some connection I am missing, or did you all just turn into a bunch of fuddy-duddy Andy Rooneys?

Yea, the information about the tats and stuff came from kaboom! (3rd poster) who has actually eaten at the shop in question. Grand Magus didn't mention it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Usually when Grand Magus posts something, it's just copy-and-pasted from elsewhere, but I can't seem to find anything about this place closing due to pierced and tatted employees.

Is there some connection I am missing, or did you all just turn into a bunch of fuddy-duddy Andy Rooneys?

Yea, the information about the tats and stuff came from kaboom! (3rd poster) who has actually eaten at the shop in question. Grand Magus didn't mention it.

{facepalm} Tensor, Grand Magus, and Kaboom are all the same friggin person!


Well then... That would be my bad. On the cell phone so no mouse over :(


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And that known group of tattoo fiends and piercing fanatics, the entire staff of the Katie show were fired just before their Christmas party started. It's your own fault, Mrs. Couric; viewers just could stand your spiderweb-on-the-neck tattoo and numerous facial piercings.

Shadow Lodge RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

I kind of like tats and piercings (despite not having any myself), and I enjoy seeing them on the wait staff at restaurants I visit. They give the place character.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Unklbuck wrote:
I prefer to not buy my food from some slacker with his face covered in shrapnel....it's their choice to get tats and piercings and it's my choice to go somewhere else
Does food taste different when served by people with tattoo and piercings?

Burrrps and spits out a belly button ring

Just a little.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Well then... That would be my bad. On the cell phone so no mouse over :(

Welcome to the OTD, BDTB! It's a fun and welcoming place, but you have to be on the look-out for some of its more, um, colorful characters.

For example, Grand Magus (and all of his/her various avatars) who likes to make threads suggesting that the average person is much less intelligent than him/her and has a wonderfully charming habit of ending his/her posts with "Hooray for Public School!"

Then, there is this communist goblin whom we can't get rid of, no matter how much we ignore him, who likes to post links about striking proletarians and loves to yell out slogans, like,

Organize the Unorganized!
For $15/hr and a Union!
Vive le Galt!


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Well then... That would be my bad. On the cell phone so no mouse over :(

Welcome to the OTD, BDTB! It's a fun and welcoming place, but you have to be on the look-out for some of its more, um, colorful characters.

For example, Grand Magus (and all of his/her various avatars) who likes to make threads suggesting that the average person is much less intelligent than him/her and has a wonderfully charming habit of ending his/her posts with "Hooray for Public School!"

Then, there is this communist goblin whom we can't get rid of, no matter how much we ignore him, who likes to post links about striking proletarians and loves to yell out slogans, like,

Organize the Unorganized!
For $15/hr and a Union!
Vive le Galt!

Don't tell me you're making a shift over to social democracy! I need somebody to call a pinko bastard when I'm feeling especially patriotic.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Well then... That would be my bad. On the cell phone so no mouse over :(

Welcome to the OTD, BDTB! It's a fun and welcoming place, but you have to be on the look-out for some of its more, um, colorful characters.

For example, Grand Magus (and all of his/her various avatars) who likes to make threads suggesting that the average person is much less intelligent than him/her and has a wonderfully charming habit of ending his/her posts with "Hooray for Public School!"

Then, there is this communist goblin whom we can't get rid of, no matter how much we ignore him, who likes to post links about striking proletarians and loves to yell out slogans, like,

Organize the Unorganized!
For $15/hr and a Union!
Vive le Galt!

There are gossips that goblin has some amount of troll blood somewhere in him but we hadn't confirmed if he bites (which would explain troll blood).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drejk wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Well then... That would be my bad. On the cell phone so no mouse over :(

Welcome to the OTD, BDTB! It's a fun and welcoming place, but you have to be on the look-out for some of its more, um, colorful characters.

For example, Grand Magus (and all of his/her various avatars) who likes to make threads suggesting that the average person is much less intelligent than him/her and has a wonderfully charming habit of ending his/her posts with "Hooray for Public School!"

Then, there is this communist goblin whom we can't get rid of, no matter how much we ignore him, who likes to post links about striking proletarians and loves to yell out slogans, like,

Organize the Unorganized!
For $15/hr and a Union!
Vive le Galt!

There are gossips that goblin has some amount of troll blood somewhere in him but we hadn't confirmed if he bites (which would explain troll blood).

We may not have confirmed if he bites, but he slaps you an awful lot if you manage to work your way out of the goblin kennels to a position with the house staff . . . :(


[Slaps Dicey, sets up a picket line around the thread, and yells at Mama Kelsey and Baby Drejk]

Hey, you [redacted redacted], we're on [redacted] strike here!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

[Slaps Dicey, sets up a picket line around the thread, and yells at Mama Kelsey and Baby Drejk]

Hey, you [redacted redacted], we're on [redacted] strike here!

Oooh ... a work opportunity!!!

The Exchange

Freehold DM wrote:
kaboom! wrote:

"I have eaten at this place, and everyone there was covered in tattoos and piercings. It's no wonder they couldn't find jobs paying them a good wage because most organizations requiring professional dress and grooming never would have hired them, unless it was some second hand clothing store in Wicker Park, the hipster enclave of Chicago.

So they picketed and fought for higher wages, now they are out of a job. Would it have been better to make the lower wage and still have an on-going job? Or are they better off with no job? Personally, I would have kept the lower wage, and then made a plan to get myself a better paying job or a second job to improve my living standard. But I guess the tactics I used on myself when coming out of high school and college are "dated" and "out of touch"."

tattoos and the like do not means someone is not deserving of job with good pay or basic human decency. Unless there was something up with your service or the food, this is sounds more like intolerance of people with weird piercings and the like than any deficiency on their part. Stick to McDonald's and subway and the like if you want a uniform appearance and guaranteed low pay in your servers.

You make it sound like recoiling from tats and piercing is like recoiling from members of a certain race or something, when it's really not.

Without thinking less about anybody or even having any bias, I can say that I wouldn't want to eat in a place where the waiters are all pierced and tattooed in obvious and unusual ways. I find most forms of piercing to range from "unpleasant to the eye" to "downright repulsive".

But the thing is, nobody is born with a tattoo or a piercing. It's anybody's own decision if they want to get some - and as far as fashion choices go, getting serious piercing is a rather radical one that deviates a lot from what most people would consider pleasant- and does so quite intentionally, too. It's a purposeful reshaping of the human body into something it was not intended to be. To me, and to many others, it's simply unpleasant to look at.

You can't blame people for preferring to eat someplace where the staff is less outlandish, and you can't blame the owner for hiring the best staff available to make money by drawing more customers. If someone is willing to get a tattoo or a piercing, they should also be willing to accept consequences.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
houstonderek wrote:

Being tatted and pierced is a choice. It flies in some places, it doesn't in others. But if someone does make that choice, they shouldn't b!#!# when they are taken less seriously.

It's like when friends of mine would get hassled by the cops because of how they dressed, hairstyles, tats, whatever. Was it right? Nope. Does it matter? Nope. If you do something to get attention (and, seriously, most people in the tat and piercing scene are attention whores - if you don't know my background, please don't debate me on this), don't be upset if some of that attention isn't what you wanted.

I'd probably be safe assuming my past is a bit more checkered than the average Paizo poster, and I've done a lot of crazy stuff, but, until the day I was arrested, I NEVER got hassled by the cops. Why? Because I take pains to look as average as possible. I KNOW how perception works, and I would use that to my advantage.

The universe owes no one anything. If you want to have some things, get treated certain ways, and have people react to you a certain way, play the game. If you choose to step outside of the norm, be willing to accept that some doors will be closed to you.

Speaking as another with a "less-than-savory" past, I was a 1980's punker. I couldn't walk down the street at night without getting cornered by the cops. "What are you doing? Where are you going? What's in the bag?" Guess what? It's their job to harass people who look 'different'. My then-girlfriend (now wife) wanted to see what I looked like with hair, so for a couple of months I lost the leathers and the mohawk and wore polo shirts and styled my hair. All police 'harassment' stopped. She decided she liked the leathers better, and I went back to my nightly police visits. But I just got to know all the local police, to the point they'd slow down, see it was me, wave, and move on.

(Another amazing fact: Be polite and cooperative with the police and they'll actually appreciate it and usually leave you be. Your mileage may vary.)

And yes, I know. I'm white. I never got pulled over for being dark-skinned in the wrong neighborhood. So I don't even want to start *THAT* topic. I just wanted to point out that if you actively choose to look 'different', don't be surprised when people treat you differently.

EDIT: Final edit: I lost the 'hawk and the leathers the moment my first 'real' employer commented that she wasn't 100% comfortable with my appearance in front of the customers. Rather than railing against the unfairness of the world, I cleaned up and dressed appropriately for the position. And proceeded to be her top-rated employee for 3 years running. You choose your fights. If you choose to fight, sometimes you'll lose. (And I think this is waaaay off-topic from the original post, since I'm dubious the appearance of the staff had anything to do with the store closing, but it's a good topic nonetheless...)


[Breaks Scabby's kneecaps and glowers threateningly at everyone who thinks this has anything to do with piercings and tattoos]

Vive le Galt, mo'fos!


Move along citizens, nothing to see here.


<crawls past the picket line>

Noooooooo ... gonna get that job ... just can't carry heavy loads now ...


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
kaboom! wrote:

"I have eaten at this place, and everyone there was covered in tattoos and piercings. It's no wonder they couldn't find jobs paying them a good wage because most organizations requiring professional dress and grooming never would have hired them, unless it was some second hand clothing store in Wicker Park, the hipster enclave of Chicago.

So they picketed and fought for higher wages, now they are out of a job. Would it have been better to make the lower wage and still have an on-going job? Or are they better off with no job? Personally, I would have kept the lower wage, and then made a plan to get myself a better paying job or a second job to improve my living standard. But I guess the tactics I used on myself when coming out of high school and college are "dated" and "out of touch"."

tattoos and the like do not means someone is not deserving of job with good pay or basic human decency. Unless there was something up with your service or the food, this is sounds more like intolerance of people with weird piercings and the like than any deficiency on their part. Stick to McDonald's and subway and the like if you want a uniform appearance and guaranteed low pay in your servers.

You make it sound like recoiling from tats and piercing is like recoiling from members of a certain race or something, when it's really not.

Without thinking less about anybody or even having any bias, I can say that I wouldn't want to eat in a place where the waiters are all pierced and tattooed in obvious and unusual ways. I find most forms of piercing to range from...

And none of this has a damn thing to do with the owner firing the staff without notice just before Christmas. It's not like he just noticed the staff was tattooed and pierced one day and fired them all. This is pretty blatantly retaliation for union action.

And that's all assuming the bit about tattoos and piercings is even real. It's posted by an alias of the OP. It's quoted as if from somewhere else, but unsourced. I'm skeptical. I haven't seen another source mentioning tattoos or piercings. I've seen pictures of the workers during the one-day strike and didn't notice any. Of course it was outside in December in Chicago, so they were bundled up.


this article has the quoted comment.


Scabby the Mite Scab wrote:

<crawls past the picket line>

Noooooooo ... gonna get that job ... just can't carry heavy loads now ...

Scabby, m'lord Dice would like very much to hire you as . . . wait, you can't carry heavy loads because you've been kneecapped? Well. He'll probably want to hire your relatives, provided they hold your views on unions, so that'll be at least a little money coming into the household.

Just, be warned, m'lord Dice takes a dim view of shirkers, so don't let him see you while you can't work. Also, don't hide under the veranda during your convalescence; he knows about the crawlspace, and if thinks you're down there he'll set his dogs on you and you'll just end up back at work all covered in bite marks. Trust me, it's just worth it to go back to work with half healed kneecaps the first time he finds you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
this article has the quoted comment.

OK, so not part of an article but some random, basically anonymous commenter. Not the most credible source, but no real reason to disbelieve either.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
this article has the quoted comment.

OK, so not part of an article but some random, basically anonymous commenter. Not the most credible source, but no real reason to disbelieve either.

I bolded the section that gives a reader a strong reason to disbelieve.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
And none of this has a damn thing to do with the owner firing the staff without notice just before Christmas. It's not like he just noticed the staff was tattooed and pierced one day and fired them all. This is pretty blatantly retaliation for union action.

That's it entirely. The owner already has plans to reopen in the same location after "reconceptualizing" (aka any public outcry has hopefully died down), so his claims of "losses" and "increased competition" are suspect.

As for the quoted comment about tattooed and pierced employees, it fits right in with the other unsubstantiated claims and attempts to libel the employees. If they were doing their job, polite/courteous, clean, and prepared decent food safely and competently, then they deserve a wage they can live off of. What they look like shouldn't have a g!%~#@ned thing to do with it, and they didn't all suddenly go out to a group piercing & tattoo party one night. If people, including posters here, have a problem with visible tattoos and piercings on minimum wage or below-minimum wage, then they should kindly get the f*## over it or keep their dealings with the public to an absolute minimum. The employees bodies should be off-limits to public scrutiny and criticism, especially when they are just customizing their bodies to fit their own mental image and self-expression. And that ignores the article commenter's likely dog-whistling that this could really be about his uncomfortableness with unashamedly hetero-normativeness employees.

So, are tattoos of loved ones unacceptable too? What about a group of friends or military or firemen bonding with a tattoo? Why are those tattoos ok and others not? Why are conservative earring piercings ok, but others not? And even if they decided to get their tattoos removed, does anyone here know how expensive it is to get them lasered off... especially when you are trying to live on a low wage from a restaurant?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

And, as I said earlier, the photos from the earlier strike don't show anything out of the ordinary for tattoos or piercings. With the caveat that it was December and they were bundled up.


What the [redacted] are you doing in this thread, [redacted]?!?

Did your [redacted] mothers raise you to be [redacted redacted]?!? Would she proud, you think, to know her son/daughter/whatever is a [redacted redacted]?!?

[Throws rocks at scabs]


3 people marked this as a favorite.

wait ... if I was a [redacted redacted], wouldn't that just make me a [redacted]?

Scabs unite! We will overthrow the ... wait a minute ...


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Unklbuck wrote:
I prefer to not buy my food from some slacker with his face covered in shrapnel

I wasn't aware that tattoos and body piercing had a strong correlation with one's work ethic.

The Exchange

thejeff wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
kaboom! wrote:

"I have eaten at this place, and everyone there was covered in tattoos and piercings. It's no wonder they couldn't find jobs paying them a good wage because most organizations requiring professional dress and grooming never would have hired them, unless it was some second hand clothing store in Wicker Park, the hipster enclave of Chicago.

So they picketed and fought for higher wages, now they are out of a job. Would it have been better to make the lower wage and still have an on-going job? Or are they better off with no job? Personally, I would have kept the lower wage, and then made a plan to get myself a better paying job or a second job to improve my living standard. But I guess the tactics I used on myself when coming out of high school and college are "dated" and "out of touch"."

tattoos and the like do not means someone is not deserving of job with good pay or basic human decency. Unless there was something up with your service or the food, this is sounds more like intolerance of people with weird piercings and the like than any deficiency on their part. Stick to McDonald's and subway and the like if you want a uniform appearance and guaranteed low pay in your servers.

You make it sound like recoiling from tats and piercing is like recoiling from members of a certain race or something, when it's really not.

Without thinking less about anybody or even having any bias, I can say that I wouldn't want to eat in a place where the waiters are all pierced and tattooed in obvious and unusual ways. I find most forms of piercing to range from...

And none of this has a damn thing to do with the owner firing the staff without notice just before Christmas. It's not like he just noticed the staff was tattooed and pierced one day and fired them all. This is pretty blatantly retaliation for union action.

And that's all assuming the bit about tattoos and piercings is even real. It's posted by an alias of the OP. It's...

I was not really commenting on anything the OP or any of his aliases said, only on Freehold DM's comment that "tattoos and the like do not means someone is not deserving of job with good pay or basic human decency.". It's not that I disagree, it's that I think that firing/not hiring someone because of the way they choose to appear is legitimate. They made their choice and must accept that it can cost them. See NobodysHome's comment - through his personal experience he expressed that sentiment far better than I did.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:
...I think that firing/not hiring someone because of the way they choose to appear is legitimate. They made their choice and must accept that it can cost them. See NobodysHome's comment - through his personal experience he expressed that sentiment far better than I did.

That sounds too close to excusing ill treatment solely on how someone is dressed or appears... they choose not to fit societal norms, so they deserve what comes their way? Cops harassing people based solely on punk haircuts and leathers, or fitting a certain racial profile, is lazy incompetent police work.

But really, you can be fired because you're too attractive. Or not attractive enough. Or fired for looking gay. Or fired for "choosing" to be true to your real self. But hey, they "chose it", so they deserved it?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
...I think that firing/not hiring someone because of the way they choose to appear is legitimate. They made their choice and must accept that it can cost them. See NobodysHome's comment - through his personal experience he expressed that sentiment far better than I did.

That sounds too close to excusing ill treatment solely on how someone is dressed or appears... they choose not to fit societal norms, so they deserve what comes their way? Cops harassing people based solely on punk haircuts and leathers, or fitting a certain racial profile, is lazy incompetent police work.

But really, you can be fired because you're too attractive. Or not attractive enough. Or fired for looking gay. Or fired for "choosing" to be true to your real self. But hey, they "chose it", so they deserved it?

Let me tell about something called "quo"

Its a thing about status we know
if things look the same
benign, stale, or tame,
then our head in the sand can then go!


Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
they choose not to fit societal norms

If you choose to reject societal norms then it should not come as a surprise that normal society rejects you.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
they choose not to fit societal norms
If you choose to reject societal norms then it should not come as a surprise that normal society rejects you.

Well, I can't give you any points for enlightenment or actually getting to know people who are different, but I must admit your way is much more expedient and easier.

I can only hope someone with economic power over you doesn't decide you deserve ill treatment for something they decide doesn't fit their definition of "normal."


Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
If people, including posters here, have a problem with visible tattoos and piercings on minimum wage or below-minimum wage, then they should kindly get the f$$$ over it or keep their dealings with the public to an absolute minimum.

Except they have money that businesses want in their bank accounts. If part of obtaining that money means not having employees who have exposed tattoos or piercings other than in the earlobe then they will not have those employees.

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
And even if they decided to get their tattoos removed, does anyone here know how expensive it is to get them lasered off... especially when you are trying to live on a low wage...

Presumably less for non-existent tattoos. By the way, NOT getting tattoos is a great way to save some cash.


Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
they choose not to fit societal norms
If you choose to reject societal norms then it should not come as a surprise that normal society rejects you.
Well, I can't give you any points for enlightenment or actually getting to know people who are different, but I must admit your way is much more expedient and easier.

Normal society expects conformity. I not saying that it is right or wrong, but only that is true.

The Exchange

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
...I think that firing/not hiring someone because of the way they choose to appear is legitimate. They made their choice and must accept that it can cost them. See NobodysHome's comment - through his personal experience he expressed that sentiment far better than I did.

That sounds too close to excusing ill treatment solely on how someone is dressed or appears... they choose not to fit societal norms, so they deserve what comes their way? Cops harassing people based solely on punk haircuts and leathers, or fitting a certain racial profile, is lazy incompetent police work.

But really, you can be fired because you're too attractive. Or not attractive enough. Or fired for looking gay. Or fired for "choosing" to be true to your real self. But hey, they "chose it", so they deserved it?

1) There is a *serious* difference between firing someone because of the level of attraction the boss feels to them, and firing someone because their dress code doesn't suite your place of business, and they insist/are unable (in the case of tattoos) to change that.

2) discrimination based on sexual-orientation/race/gender or any of a dozen other similar things is illegal because of the view that all humans are born equal. However, there is a line (it's a fine one, but most certainly there) between "choices you make" and "being yourself". Using modern technology to make sure your body is the same gender as you are - that's being yourself. It's basically fixing a mistake that nature made. Painting all over yourself and dangling jewelry from your body - not so much. You are not allowed to discriminate based on identity, but you are allowed to "discriminate" (I feel "differentiate" would be a better word here) based on the choices, actions and behavior of other humans. For example, a certain kind of behavior, combined with the misfortune of getting caught could cost someone most of their basic freedoms, by getting them thrown to jail. There is room for that in democracy, and it's also common sense.

3) You should not expect to face any consequences if you are gay or unattractive - again, because a hypothetical citizen of a liberal, social democratic nation would not discriminate you on that basis. However, tattoos and piercings are a willing deviation from what is considered the acceptable norm. Nobody would be surprised if a guy who refuses to wear pants would have a hard time securing a "job with good pay", and this is not much different.

As I said above this is all a fine line to walk, and I'm not surprised others see things a bit different than I do. However, I firmly believe that it's important to understand the essence of democratic thinking when applying the principals of democracy, and not just go with a total, all paralyzing "you can't judge anyone based on anything unless it explicitly harms a third party or yourself". Democracy should, and does, have the means to enable a functional society with norms, without dabbling in questionable morality.

The way someone chooses to dress can, in extreme situations (like piercing-riddled and tattooed people), be enough to differentiate between them and other people. Other examples that spring to mind are being naked (/wearing clothes that are too revealing to be considered decent in public), serious lack of personal hygiene, or wearing anything offensive (like a T-Shirt with a harmful slogan or something).

Again I would refer you to NoNodysHome's post, where he tells of how when it became an issue he got rid of the problematic look, because he realized it became a legitimate concern for his employer.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
I can only hope someone with economic power over you doesn't decide you deserve ill treatment for something they decide doesn't fit their definition of "normal."

It has happened to me. Which is why I now own my own business. And I don't have customer facing employees. Which is why I'm able to hire people with tattoos and felony records.

When I open a retail front, I don't plan on inviting those employees to work the counter. Maybe that makes me an asshat. But I would rather be an asshat with a house and food on the table than an idealist who is broke.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Speaking seriously now, as a food service worker: any place that has a logo like (or website, for that matter) Snarf's is not providing a fine dining experience.

BigDTBone, I guess my question for you is, assuming you hire your ideal set of employees for your storefront, and assuming it loses so much money that you have to close it, would you notify your ideal set of employees 2 days before christmas, with a mass email? Cause it's that last thing that puts management on a whole new level of douche-bag, not the first two.


Hitdice wrote:

Speaking seriously now, as a food service worker: any place that has a logo like (or website, for that matter) Snarf's is not providing a fine dining experience.

BigDTBone, I guess my question for you is, assuming you hire your ideal set of employees for your storefront, and assuming it loses so much money that you have to close it, would you notify your ideal set of employees 2 days before christmas, with a mass email? Cause it's that last thing that puts management on a whole new level of douche-bag, not the first two.

I wouldn't give any employee news about changes in their job via email. Timing is what it is... if something catastrophic happened and I needed to tell my employees that they would be out of work I would do it as soon as possible, even if that means December 23rd is the date.

That scenario is unlikely however, because even if I decided to shut down (my hypothetical) retail operations I would offer those employees positions in the other segment of my business. I expect some of them would say yes and some would say no, but it would be their choice.

1 to 50 of 468 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Chicago Sandwich Shop Emails Employees On Dec. 23rd To Say Merry Christmas And You're All Fired All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.