Don't Try So Hard, You Are Making Us Look Bad

[MercenaryChef]

i will begin this by saying i not only love what i do for a living, but i love where i do it, and for the most part have a great appreciation and fondness for the people who work for me and with me each day. 

a bit of background: the restaurant that i am the chef of is in a hotel that is unionized. this is my first unionized property so over five years i have learned a great deal on how to negotiate working with it and using it to my advantage. my father was a shop steward in his own union for many years and he has been invaluable in coming to understand this new workplace. 

words that just kill me inside are 'it's not my job.' we are in the hospitality business, people. when it comes to making a guest happy and helping them enjoy their stay it is in fact all of our jobs. i die inside when i see someone ignore the room service phone, not bus a table, etc because...well it's not my job. 

recently i had a very very good and promising cook quit after only three months. in three months he became the best cook we had. he asked a ton of questions. he wanted to learn. he took a immense pride in doing his work exactly as he was shown each and every time. this dude was a true professional. 

when i asked him in private why he was leaving he had tears in his eyes and told me how the others would bully him, talk shit to him and generally look down on him because he tried so hard and did such fine work. my kitchen has lost one of the best cooks through it in five years because he was being beaten down by his coworkers for trying. the idea of 'we all get paid the same and all get the same raises every six months so why put in additional effort' confounds and insults me.

i have rolled this whole thing over in my head a lot in the last few weeks. granted in five years since i came to this kitchen the food is immensely better. these cooks whether they wanted to or not came into my new set of standards, learned and worked hard. they are not bad people. i like almost all of them a great deal. but, now i am having a managerial crisis in my own head. i want the food and standards to keep growing. some of these people will not have the skills and work ethic to grow into these new standards. but, i cannot have them undermining the goals by bullying those that come in who are capable of hitting these marks.

right now i have two openings. to have two at the same time is almost unheard of. i have one who has been in that particular property for 36 years. we joke she refuses to retire and insists on dying there. i am hoping that my two new hires (who i am desperately searching for) will bond over being the new element and not be led down the road of the others. 

how does one inspire people to be great when simply satisfactory will get you all you need?

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

MC,

Wow.  I don't even know where to start with that.  Hope it works out well for you.

[Theda Baratheon]

I work retail and even though I'm not a huge fan, when I'm THERE, physically in the store I try to do the absolute best job I can do unless a customer is abusing me then I refuse to serve them, I don't slack off, I constantly ask my managers for more jobs to handle because I hate waiting around doing nothing so I've never really understood just not trying in a job. Yeah you're getting paid and you can technically do the minimum amount and still get paid but why would you want to just skate by. 

Sorry I know nothing about kitchens or how they're run/should be run. Best of luck. What a shame for you but also that cook that grown ads adults still act like petty little bullies to someone actually caring. 

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

This is the thing that has always bothered me about organized labor. Bullying a man with a good work ethic and talent to the point where he quits though takes the cake. 

[Jaxom 1974]

I think I'm in a similar train of thought.  I get the concept of organized labor and see many benefits, but then there are these stories and it makes me want to burn the whole thing to the ground.  

I've seen the same thing, MC.  In the hotel setting and the University setting with food service.  I wish I had good advice. Right now I don't think you can do much except work within the confines of the contract to begin moving older, handed, set in their ways individuals out, particularly to bring in those who want to improve in their craft.

And, if it ever comes up with your long termers about why such a good one left so abruptly, don't hold back in letting the others know that it was the attitudes of the others around him who drove him away.  I'd do it without placing blame on anyone in particular, but make them understand your disappointed.  You should know which ones you can approach with this information if needed.

[BigFatCoward]

Fuck knows how you solve that one.  I have a similar but not identical problem at work.  I just can't seem to get staff to understand that 'you are meant to be busy at work'!  You show up for 12 hours, you work for those 12 hours (you get a refreshment break obviously) then you go home, you are not entitled to sit on your phone, or the internet unless the workload dictates it (the workload in our job is very peaks and troughs, so you work like crazy for a few hours, but then inevitably get some down time).

And screw people saying 'you don't know what its like in the ivory tower', how the fuck do you think i got to sit in the ivory tower you morons?  By working my arse off and doing a good job. 

[MercenaryChef]

i respect the fuck out of unionized labor. it is a pretty sweet thing. you have this outside entity forcing otherwise unwilling ownership to take less profit and provide their workers with better wages, sick and vacation time, retirement funds, etc. 

i wish i had any of those things as a growing cook. instead i worked a lot of hours, sometimes two jobs, had low wages, no healthcare, no vacation, all in the desire to be really good at what i do. 

the problem is the system (unionized labor) is generally contracted in such a way that there is no way to applaud exemplar work. i cannot even give a raise to a unionized cook if i wanted to. they all must get the same predetermined amount at the same time. it is not a system designed for someone to excel. it is about maintaining the status quo. 

it saddens me to see a career i so loved when it was mine (line cook) devalued into this pathetic ordeal of just punching the clock, doing the bare minimum to not get disciplined by the chef, never furthering your skills or knowledge and waiting for your 8 hours to be up. 

jaxom clearly understands where i am coming from. sadly those old timers cannot be fired. they do just as i described above. they do the bare minimum. they are that passing student. and to make it worse the really tenured ones are sacred cows to their union. a couple years ago i fired a guy. he had at that time i believe 33 years in. he returned. everything i had on him was solid. but it really came down to tenure. i was literally laughed at by the union attorney during the arbitration hearing. 'you can't fire a man who has that much time in the job.' and she was right. he has since been a fairly harmless employee since his brush with termination.

but, dog damn it. i work fucking hard and love the fuck out of what i do. i just want people to show some pride and desire. i am not going to chain you to the stoves. i promise. just give me the very best you have and hold your head up like you give a shit during those 8 hours a day. 

[Iskaral Pust]

Jeez MC, I'm sorry to hear that.  It's so frustrating.  That attitude is my biggest problem with unions, and it is unfortunately pretty widespread.  I remember my dad complaining of the same thing as a young warehouse worker trying to work his way up into a mgmt role.  There was bullying, petty sabotage, jobs-worth passive aggressiveness, deliberate neglect leading to damage of equipment -- and my dad was a diehard socialist and shop steward who led them on a walk-out before that.

But let me try to help with an actual solution: it's a pretty common problem regardless of unions.  You want to change an existing culture, you want to raise performance levels and expectations, and you're probably going to recruit new people with more talent and drive than the existing workforce.  Some of the existing workforce will probably resist and resent but you can't get rid of them.  Other managers face the same challenge because of age discrimination law.

By the way, in my current role for the past 3-4 years I've redefined the role of our team and set much higher expectations, plus hired better talent, but I was able to get my legacies to buy in.  They wanted to be part of something better and feel greater pride and accomplishment. 

So I think your approach should include:

1. Try to inspire your legacies to want to achieve more.  State your goal for the team.  Create a sense of professional pride, e.g. by identifying competitors, trying to win a Michelin rating, opportunities for career growth, whatever.  At least some of your people will enjoy having a greater sense of purpose than punching a clock. 

2. Give some token responsibility to salve pride and feel like a contributor.  Pick one or two of your influential legacies and tell them that you think they're the person to help you mould the team.  Give them a role alongside you in recruiting new talent, and constantly emphasize imoroving talent and quality to make the team stronger.  You'll turn them into a messenger to other legacies. 

3. Marginalize any obstructionists.  If you have legacies who will always be crabs in the bucket, then assign them grunt work away from everyone else and undermine them so that their complaints will be ignored by those who are buying into your vision. They're probably on a path to #6.

4. Share praise.  As you add new talent, make sure to praise and celebrate the growth and achievements of legacy team members too. 

5. Foster a sense of team.  Make everyone an owner of the team outcome.  Return to the tangible goals in #1 and get them a win to celebrate.

6. For any truly toxic team members, talk to them openly and honestly about how they feel about the direction of the team.  Offer to help them find a spot somewhere else that will suit them better.  Make it clear that this new direction will continue. 

[sologdin]

4 hours ago, MercurialCannibal said:

when i asked him in private why he was leaving he had tears in his eyes and told me how the others would bully him, talk shit to him and generally look down on him because he tried so hard and did such fine work. my kitchen has lost one of the best cooks through it in five years because he was being beaten down by his coworkers for trying. the idea of 'we all get paid the same and all get the same raises every six months so why put in additional effort' confounds and insults me.

the employee should've enlisted the union to prosecute a grievance for workplace harassment, as the employer is in probable violation for failure to train and discipline the harassers.  victim employee likely should've been made aware at the point of hiring that options other than resignation are available.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

8 minutes ago, sologdin said:

the employee should've enlisted the union to prosecute a grievance for workplace harassment, as the employer is in probable violation for failure to train and discipline the harassers.  victim employee likely should've been made aware at the point of hiring that options other than resignation are available.

So, unionized employees bullying and harrasing another member of their Union for actually caring about his job is on the employer?  You don't think there might have been rather severe reprecussions on the complaining cook "off the record" had he made such a complaint?

[Iskaral Pust]

2 minutes ago, sologdin said:

the employee should've enlisted the union to prosecute a grievance for workplace harassment, as the employer is in probable violation for failure to train and discipline the harassers.  victim employee likely should've been made aware at the point of hiring that options other than resignation are available.

I love your rose-tinted glasses of how unions and socialism should work instead of reality.  It's like the USSR never happened. The petty laziness and selfishness among the proletariat and the incompetence, corruption and self-dealing among the union leaders are the great bane of the socialist politicos, who are themselves just another self-appointed priesthood/aristocracy telling everyone how they ought to be. 

[SerPaladin]

If you are making the same hamburger back there everyday, just like making the same auto, or cleaning the same room, some vocation where "competence" is sufficient, then the union guys are on the right side of this. They will never get a pay increase for being extraordinary if they are on a salary scale guide. It's a dis-incentive to excellence.

If food preparation is art, not an assembly line, then it sounds like you and the bullied cook should be working somewhere without a safety net. I'm going to assume that the hotel restaurant has a lot lower risk of closure due to it's association with the hotel. You may have to deal with the union "don't make us look bad" mentality, but you probably have less no-shows and flakes because it's a stable union job that they'd prefer not to screw up.

[sologdin]

47 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So, unionized employees bullying and harrasing another member of their Union for actually caring about his job is on the employer?  You don't think there might have been rather severe reprecussions on the complaining cook "off the record" had he made such a complaint?

whose responsibility is it to control wayward employees on the employer's premises? one makes out the grievance against the offending employees to the union and/or employer.  if employer fails to act, yeah, that's unequivocally on the employer, both for its own failure and via respondeat superior. basic, no?

46 minutes ago, Iskaral Pust said:

I love your rose-tinted glasses of how unions and socialism should work instead of reality.  It's like the USSR never happened. The petty laziness and selfishness among the proletariat and the incompetence, corruption and self-dealing among the union leaders are the great bane of the socialist politicos, who are themselves just another self-appointed priesthood/aristocracy telling everyone how they ought to be. 

has someone hijacked this account, which normally lacks neither rigor nor civility?  if union is ineffective to sort out the grievance, then perhaps the complaint should proceed to the judiciary? ineffective and corrupt unions can themselves be disciplined via landrum-griffin, no?  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

13 minutes ago, sologdin said:

whose responsibility is it to control wayward employees on the employer's premises? one makes out the grievance against the offending employees to the union and/or employer.  if employer fails to act, yeah, that's unequivocally on the employer, both for its own failure and via respondeat superior. basic, no?

has someone hijacked this account, which is normally lacks neither rigor nor civility?  if union is ineffective to sort out the grievance, then perhaps the complaint should proceed to the judiciary? ineffective and corrupt unions can themselves be disciplined via landrum-griffin, no?

Sologdin,

Is harrassing hard working Union members part of their duties?  Should respondeat superior apply if their are harrassment policies in place and they are violating those policies given that this is the first MC has learned of the harrassment? 

Outside of the legal framework what really pisses me off is the assholes who did the harrassing skate in your structure.  How hard would it be to fire those shitheels in this system?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 Do you have a shop steward among the cooks/staff that you have direct supervision over? If so, and if you have a good working relationship with that person, I would suggest pulling that person in to discuss your concerns. I think there are some fairly easy ways to implement a reward system of sorts that doesn't involve a raise, but you have to be really careful not to create a atmosphere of favoritism that would run counter to the union rules, or foment that feeling among your crew.

 Outside of that, it seems to me that you have a good opportunity to kind of shape your charges given that you do the hiring. You might have to kind of restart from the ground up, but if you are able to staff these positions with folks who have a similar drive as the guy you just lost, I'm guessing you can effect a change that way. And now you know that you might have to protect those folks from the aholes who are making things hard for them.

 

[sologdin]

scot, the grievance i envision is that employer has failed to train and discipline the harassers.  it's fairly evident that no such anti-harassment policies are in fact in place, if unproductive employees are able to sabotage the work of productive employees with absolute impunity, leading to the constructive discharge of the productive employees aforesaid.  

under your hypothetical, if there were a well-enforced policy, then the harassers would've been subject to discipline already; respondeat superior regardless if acts were done in course and scope, no? the question becomes whether harassment while on the employer's premises carries the employee out of course & scope.  maybe.  

am fairly sure that the successful grievance against the employer and/or union leads inexorably to discipline of the harassers, up to and including termination?

am not sure what's got you so exercised, other than employer-oriented animus. the culture of the worksite is toxic; employer bears the primary responsibility for that toxicity--call it negligent hiring, call it ineffective anti-harassment policy, call it inattention to the rights of employees--it all amounts to the same thing.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sologdin,

It pisses me off that the employer has to go through costly hoops to fire asshats who harrassed another memember of their union for doing his job.  The hoops are created by the Union to make it difficult to fire their memembers, right?

[sologdin]

as though the wagner act were the villain and the poor cappy were the victim--oh no, my top hat is ruffled because I can't afford to buy a third vacation home this year.  

 

what is meant by 'hoops' of course is due process under the collective bargaining agreement.  do we prefer instead capricious termination as on trump's reality show?

 

maybe employer could avoid negligent hiring, poor training, and non-enforcement of anti-harassment rules.

what's needed is a political economy that doesn't produce lumpenized antisocial nihilists who desire to evade work and free ride on others. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, sologdin said:

as though the wagner act were the villain and the poor cappy were the victim--oh no, my top hat is ruffled because I can't afford to buy a third vacation home this year.  

 

what is meant by 'hoops' of course is due process under the collective bargaining agreement.  do we prefer instead capricious termination as on trump's reality show?

 

maybe employer could avoid negligent hiring, poor training, and non-enforcement of anti-harassment rules.

what's needed is a political economy that doesn't produce lumpenized antisocial nihilists who desire to evade work and free ride on others. 

By making it more difficult and more expensive to fire shitheads.  Sure that doesn't create an incentive to not attempt to fire these people because of the expense incurred in attempting to fire them.

[Ghadrack]

53 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Sologdin,

It pisses me off that the employer has to go through costly hoops to fire asshats who harrassed another memember of their union for doing his job.  The hoops are created by the Union to make it difficult to fire their memembers, right?

Just to interject, it may not necessarily be the union issue alone but it could involve a poor HR policy / process with the employer, management training around HR disasters, or an employee who didn't share what was going on until it hit critical mass and they had already decided to bail on the situation. 

Also, regarding the people that the OP has in the kitchen, well, you may like them, but it sounds like you've got a couple cancerous boils that are sabotaging your objectives, if you can't coach them to get with the program, lance the boil, set expectations, hold them accountable and address any bullying behavior head on.  It will make things a little uncomfortable, but as the boss, you do have the tamp down the nonsense periodically and it sounds like you've got an out of control element or two in your kitchen trying to back-seat manage the operation.  If you get your two new hires and they are future all stars, you'll lose them too if you have  destructive force in your kitchen poisoning the well. 

I work in HR at a large company.  If a manager has an employee being bullied by peers it can be addressed through HR, and if in a Union shop in concert with the Union to correct misbehavior. If you are losing your best talent because of stuff like this you should definitely be bringing these issues to your HR department.  I hate to make it sounds us against them, because I am a huge union labor supporter, but lazy turds need to be dealt with, use the tools at your disposal. 

In addition to dealing with your problem children when it's time to negotiate contracts if your problem employees have been identified as sources of pain having let your HR/Company know who the problems are, when the whole union contract is at risk of possibly getting dropped or renegotiated down, your PITA's may mysteriously end up working at Dunkin Donuts if they are screwing the rest of the contracts money.    They can also really do something about (fire) a bad employee if they levee any retaliation against the employee for complaining about the bullying, even with Union contracts certain type of misbehavior / harassment should be burned in as a terminable offence,