
I'm an Unemployed Waitress. Don't Dine Out at All - justzisguyuknow
https://www.noraeberman.com/post/i-m-an-unemployed-waitress-don-t-dine-out-at-all
======
wittyreference
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?

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

~~~
orev
“fired” means being terminated for cause, such as you stole something. “laid
off” is the term used for no longer being employed for other reasons, like the
company can’t afford to keep your position around.

~~~
xtiansimon
> “fired” means being terminated for cause, such as you stole something."

Ugh. All 50 states have At-will employment:

"At-will employment is a term used in U.S. labor law for contractual
relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any
reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination),
and without warning,[1] as long as the reason is not illegal (e.g. firing
because of the employee's race, religion or sexuality)." [1]

Being 'fired' has a negative stigma, despite the fact you can be terminated
for _any_ reason, including 'employee just didn't fit in'. Many companies are
also very savvy about the process. Have a "negative" performance review, with
a warning, then some time later be fired. Thus documenting a "cause" other
than your ugly sweater.

What's interesting is when employers mistakenly believe they can disqualify
you for unemployment because they fired you. This is not the case.

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-
will_employment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment)

~~~
orev
Thanks for the legal clarification, but that's not what the point is. Many
people, especially those new to the workforce, seem to like to use the word
"fired" to mean "lost my job" because they've heard it in TV shows or
whatever, and they don't realize that it has very negative connotations (only
that it sounds forceful).

I see a lot of people saying things like "my company ran out of money and they
fired me", which does not accurately describe what happened. If you went into
a job interview and told them you were "fired" when you were really "laid
off", that could dramatically impact whether or not you get the job, so it is
important to know what language people use, regardless of the legal
definitions.

~~~
xtiansimon
"...they don't realize that ['fired'] has very negative connotations"

?! Really?

"important to know what language people use"

Thats exactly what I'm saying. There are three terms recognized by your state
department of labor: Quit, Fired, Laid Off.

You can be "fired" both in legal terminology, and in common language use, for
no fault of your own, but the word has a negative connotation.

What am I saying? It sucks! It's a failure of language. Socially 'fired' has a
negative 'connotation' (which is commonly applied at a personal level), and in
both real-world practice and in legal terms 'fired' has the 'denotation' of
'termination' where termination can be all of these things (at a relationship
level), and the employee is not necessarily 'at fault'.

The meaning of 'fired' is so unpredictable I can't imagine anyone using it as
you say, because they don't know how someone is going to take it.

However, your next employer can call your previous employer to verify
employment and there is no federal law preventing the old employer from
describing your termination as 'fired'. That sucks.

------
schwartzworld
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
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?

~~~
rickyc091
The reality of NYC dining is more like this.

[https://ny.eater.com/2020/7/21/21302310/outdoor-dining-
reser...](https://ny.eater.com/2020/7/21/21302310/outdoor-dining-reservations-
top-nyc-restaurants)

[https://www.6sqft.com/best-outdoor-dining-restaurants-
nyc/](https://www.6sqft.com/best-outdoor-dining-restaurants-nyc/)

The tables are next to each other; in many cases, with just enough room for
one person to squeeze through. Plexiglass between each table is a rare luxury.

------
nullc
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
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.

~~~
nullc
Indeed, a tradeoff could easily make sense for someone.

That a person's chosen tradeoff might not change in a time of widescale
pandemic and massive unemployment surprises me. And that a lot of articles
take it granted that people will continue to eat out perplexes me.

We ate out a fair bit before covid19 cases took off but haven't once since
March... wasn't even something that we considered at any point.

TBH food at home has been more enjoyable than what we were getting out, the
time suck in cleanup is real-- but it isn't like we're going anywhere. :)

~~~
mnm1
I too am surprised at people who continue to eat take out. I don't trust
restaurant workers to stay home when not sick and take precautions with the
food to make sure it's not contaminated. It's hard enough dealing with food
delivery every few weeks. Most people won't change unless they are forced to.
I hope indoor restaurants and bars are shut down again soon. Completely
unnecessary services. Everything that can be should be curbside service.

