WingNews logo WingNews
top | item 23922406

I'm an Unemployed Waitress. Don't Dine Out at All

34 points| justzisguyuknow | 5 years ago |noraeberman.com

20 comments

order

wittyreference|5 years ago

I fail to understand this article. It seems to wobble between "don't eat out, you'll propagate infection to others," which, yes, social distance good, disease transmission bad.

But most of the article seems to suggest something like: "when you eat out, you put us, your service staff, at risk." Uhm... quit?

Normally I'd say something like, "most people can't afford to just quit," but no one can afford to pay you to stay home, either, so what exactly is the author proposing?

RangerScience|5 years ago

AFAIK: If no-one is eating out, the restaurants can't be open, and the staff can be on unemployment. If the restaurants are open and the staff "choose" not to work, they can't get unemployment.

vladbb|5 years ago

Most people cannot afford to quit because they would not get unemployment benefits. Being laid off is a different story.

baseballdork|5 years ago

Aren't you disqualified for unemployment benefits if you quit instead of being fired?

newen|5 years ago

Unemployment insurance is $600 a week now, I think, even if you’re working partial hours in some states.

schwartzworld|5 years ago

Before I was in software I spent many years in the restaurant industry and I can't imagine how tough it must be for those employees.

The article mentions that her boss told her not to come to work if she feels sick. In the industry, I never received anything but pushback for banging out, even when I was deathly ill. The opposite can be true with managers issuing repercussions for calling in sick.

johnnyb9|5 years ago

In NYC you can't even dine indoors. Is there really a big risk of eating maskless at a table, outdoors, separated by plexiglass (or 6 feet apart), in a city where the COVID infection rate is so low? Or serving those customers?

op00to|5 years ago

Yes there is.

nullc|5 years ago

When did we forget how to cook for ourselves? I am perplexed by the large number of articles-- including this one-- the seem to assume that the options are eat-in or take-out.

notacoward|5 years ago

It seems disturbingly common among the college-to-30 demographic. Among my coworkers at a FAANG company, many of whom had gone straight from parents' home to college dorm to a corporate campus with multiple cafes serving more-than-decent food, the switch to WFH caused no small amount of angst. Many others in tech and finance become "foodies" addicted to meals better than they can cook themselves, and since they also have the means to afford it they make it a habit. Still others, families with two working parents under constant time pressure, succumb to the appeal of five minutes managing takeout vs. twenty for even the simplest kind of meal. (That includes cleaning; one of my pet peeves is people who discount the time/effort involved in cooking because they always dump everything but over-the-flame time on other household members.)

Some of the reasons are good and some are bad. While I also view this development with some dismay, I'm hesitant to criticize people who are merely making different tradeoffs in a different time/context than I am.

justzisguyuknow|5 years ago

I am not the author but I think you can read it as "If you want restaurant food, get it to go". i think it goes without saying that cooking is always an option.