Browse By Author: L - Project Gutenberg
Mr Sugimoto, 58, had planned on travelling to Syria later this month to cover events 'If a Japanese national enters Syria we have assessed that there is a high .. Sofia Richie, 20, flaunts her toned pins in a flirty white dress as she arrives at Romee Strijd stands out in bold yellow dress as she arrives to. op vorige sponsordiner of flirt(t)en met @HendrikVuye en @Veerle_Wouters? . Juridische strijd zal niet stoppen maar na principieel positief advies RvS, tweede . Lebanon embraces Russia's refugee initiative for Syriajingle-bells.info 33jz komen en de RvB wordt bevolkt door uitgerangeerde politici, ben je geen NGO. Een groeiend aantal moslimjongeren flirt met de symbole werd bekend dat de zevende Nederlandse jihadstrijder is gedood in Syrië.
We hate when the computer system goes down, because then we have to do everything by hand. On a bad day we can spend all night cursing them. Usually, the larger the restaurant, the more chopped-up the work process is, and the stronger the tendency is to use machines to replace tasks done by people.
In a very small restaurant, the jobs of the waiter, bartender, busser and hostess may combined into one. In a very large restaurant, the tasks of the waiter may be split between two or three different job descriptions. Similarly, the use of machines to replace human tasks tends to be limited in smaller restaurants, and tends to be greater in larger ones with more capital. Machines are not used to make our jobs easier.
They are used as a way to increase the amount of product a particular worker can pump out in a given amount of time.
The first restaurants to introduce a new machine are very profitable, because they are able to produce more efficiently than the industry average. At the same time, the machines like the food or the spices do not make money for the restaurant—only the employees do.
As new machines become widely used, it becomes merely inefficient not to have one. The machines replace human tasks.
They become just another link the chain of tasks. We just have to do a smaller range of tasks, more often. Our job becomes even more specialized and repetitive. Our activity at work has been reduced to such a mechanical level that we can come into conflict with the machines. The restaurant is itself a small part of the division of labor within the economy. The process of getting food on the table is chopped into pieces. The restaurant is only the last part of the process, where the food is prepared and sold to the customers.
The raw meat and fish, the canned food and spices, the tables, chairs, napkins, and aprons all come into the restaurant as the finished commodities of other enterprises. They are produced by workers in a similar production process and under similar conditions. As restaurant workers, we are cut off from these workers. We only see the sales representative of the wine distribution company, as he samples wines with the boss, or the delivery man for the laundry company as he picks up or drops off the sacks of napkins and table-cloths.
Truman A restaurant is different from other industries in that its product cannot really be stored and sold later. It comes in waves and rushes, with slow times in between.
Restaurant workers are either bored or stressed. Everyone who works in a restaurant is pushed to work harder and faster. The boss has an interest in getting more work out of the same number of employees or in getting the same amount of work out of fewer employees. We are pushed to ridiculous extremes. During a typical dinner rush you will see a cook frying french fries, keeping an eye on a steak on the grill, waiting for a soup to come out of the microwave, boiling pasta, heating up sauce in a pan and seasoning some vegetables, all at once.
The one thing that the workers of almost every restaurant are given for free is coffee, which helps us speed up to the insane pace of the work during rushes. The pace is set by the amount of work there is to do. We superglue shut our cuts and continue on. The stress of the rushes gets to everyone in a restaurant.
Quite a few employees get drunk or high immediately after work. And after any typical night everyone is exhausted. On our way home from work, we notice that our back, our knees, or our fingers hurt. The reason is because of tips. This means that part of our wage is paid directly by the boss, and part is paid by the customer.
Tipped jobs are often the better paid jobs in the restaurant. This creates a false association for some people between tips and good pay. Tipping is a pay structure set up by the boss for very specific purposes.
This means that the ups and downs of regular business hit restaurants particularly hard. When employees are paid in tips, our wage is tied to sales. This means that when business is good, the boss makes a little less profit than he would be if he paid us a steady wage because our wages are a little higher.
When business is bad, he makes a little more because our wages are lower. It is a way of transferring some of the risks of entrepreneurship off the boss and onto the workers. More importantly, workers whose wages are made up largely of tips are schizophrenic. It is just as meaningless, stressful and alienating for both of them. At the same time, cooks make the same wage whether business is good or bad.
They just have to work harder when business is good. Waiters make more when business is good, and therefore have an interest in pushing themselves and other employees harder—which of course makes more money for the boss as well. This function of tips, is paralleled throughout the economy. Also, tips re-enforce the division of labor. Tips usually flow from the top down. The customer has a certain amount of power over the waiter, since she can decide to tip him more or less.
At the end of the night, the waiter then tips out of his tips to other employees, such as the busser or hostess. He too can tip out more or less within certain limits.
The flow of tips from top to bottom re-enforces the hierarchy in the restaurant. This last function of tipping can be lessened in restaurants where tips are pooled. Gordon Selfridge For the most part, restaurant workers hate restaurant customers.
When we run into other people who work customer service jobs at the bar or at a party, we can tell stories and rant about customers for hours.
evolutie: The Houla massacre, Syria.
In most restaurants, the workers could not afford to eat at the restaurant on a regular basis. But this is only the background for the resentment of the customers. Customers can easily be working class people with jobs just as alienating and miserable as restaurant work. Even someone who works 60 hours a week as a busser, may go out to eat, and be an asshole customer. The class background of the customers is less important than their position as customers in a restaurant.
The customers are the buyers. What they get more often is the appearance of good food and good service. Restaurant food is rarely as fresh or clean as home-made food. The loud, obnoxious customer will have their coffee refilled with decaf.
A large part of the job of the front-end staff is to fit them efficiently into that process. We get good at getting them to order, eat and pay when we want them to. This is possible because the whole meal is streamlined, with a limited number of options. We start to develop not-entirely-inaccurate prejudices based on what kinds of customers are going to be difficult to fit into the rhythm of production or which customers will tip well.
Old people and kids are trouble. Construction workers and of course other restaurant workers generally do. Customers have a lot of power over the restaurant workers—and not just when they tip us. A bad comment card can get us yelled at. A serious complaint to the manager could get us fired. The imbalance of power is such that customers sometimes act like little bosses. We hate them for the power they have over us. They form part of the surveillance apparatus of the restaurant.
We have the same careful conversations with customers over and over again. We learn to read them quickly and to say what they want to hear. We flirt and use worn-out jokes to get them to buy a lot, eat quickly, and tip well. But when we step away from the table, or out of earshot, the polite customer service face quickly drops off. We take a strange kind of pleasure in this two-facedness.
In the oppressive customer service atmosphere it is almost rebellious. The restaurant is dependent on them. A customer may complain to management, but they may also take our side. Customers have direct contact with restaurant workers, and usually want to imagine that these workers are happy and well-treated. We can sometimes use them as a way to put pressure on management. A picket line in front of a restaurant turns away customers far easier than a picket line in front of a shipyard keeps shipping companies from using it.
This is the reality of capitalism. The more people that can be sat in the restaurant at a given time, the more money the boss can make. This means that in all but the finest restaurants there is a tendency to pack tables close together in the dining room and to make the kitchen and the workstations for the bussers and waiters as small as possible.
This multiplies the amount of collisions as well as the potential for us to drop plates, or hurt each other. The boss sets up a restaurant as a way to make money. But the workers, who are essential to the production process, are hostile to it. This means that in order for production to be kept up, employees have to be constantly coerced, monitored, and played off against one another.
Management is always watching to make sure we are doing our job. Depending on the size of the restaurant this can be as personal as an abusive father or as impersonal as a police state. They assume correctly that employees will steal when no one is looking, and are constantly doing inventory checks on everything valuable. They use comment cards, well-placed mirrors, and sometimes even hidden cameras and spies to keep up this surveillance.
We are controlled, monitored and under threat constantly. Time at work in a typical restaurant is totalitarian. But no totalitarian regime survives by coercion alone.
The entire restaurant is set up to pit employees against each other. This means that the waiter has to monitor the cooks to make sure their food is being made on time and without problems that will be apparent to the customer. This is a source of endless fights. The basic division of labor is often overlaid with cultural and language differences, which can lead to all sorts of misunderstandings, and prejudices, which deepen the division between employees.
Then in the front and the back of the house, there is a top and bottom. The employees who make more and who do more skilled work look down on the others and sometimes order them around or treat them like children. The bussers and dishwashers resent the workers who make more money than them, and want to move up.
Especially among the wait-staff, management fosters an atmosphere of competition. On a slow night we try to get the hostess to seat people in our sections.
Although division of labor is pushed to an extreme, often the lines between job descriptions are purposefully fuzzy. This makes certain small tasks at the edge of different jobs a source of conflict.
A restaurant is uncomfortable. The dining room is usually the right temperature for customers sitting down and eating, not for waiters and bussers madly rushing back and forth carrying plates and glasses around. And the kitchen is even hotter. As the shift goes on we get more and more covered in food, sweat and grease. We reek of restaurant and the smell sticks to us.
This uncomfortable atmosphere makes us irritable and leads to fights. And the fights serve to keep up the frantic pace of production as well as to further divide the workers from each other. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things.
The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence. It means that restaurant work is an alienating and miserable way to make a living. We are forced to be there. Work does not feel like part of our lives. Restaurant work, has a very high turnover. Often the majority of employees in a restaurant have only been working there for a few months. Anyone who is forced to do something over and over and over and over and over again has to take some minor interest in it or go crazy.
But the rejection of our condition as restaurant workers is not simply a conscious preference. Often the workers who have the highest expectations, who are most interested in the food service industry, or who have the least hatred for the work, come into serious conflicts with the boss.
They have greater illusions and greater surprise and indignation when they come into contact with the miserable reality of the restaurant. A restaurant is a boring, uncomfortable, stressful, repetitive, alienating, hierarchical machine for pumping out surplus value.
Even the obsequious waiter who is always hanging around complimenting the boss and suggesting ways for him to better run the restaurant will one day get into a heated argument and quit when the boss blatantly treats him like a subordinate.
Our fight against restaurant work is much more fundamental than our consciousness. Almost everyone steals from work. Even workers who have sympathy for the boss and hope the restaurant makes good money will do things to make their job easier that cut into the profit margin.
It comes from our position as wage workers in a restaurant. But this is only an ideal towards which management aspires. They are never completely successful because our activity tends to push in the opposite direction.
Browse By Author: L
Restaurants bring us together with other restaurant workers in the same workplace. The work process itself requires that we cooperate and communicate with other workers. We pass plates back and forth.
We explain food and drink orders. We figure out which tables need to be pressured to pay and leave to make room for upcoming reservations. These conversations lead to more interesting ones. Everyone is looking for ways to make the work less boring or stressful. We joke around, deep fry candybars, juggle fruit, drum on the washing machine, and make fun of the customers. This joking around leads to more serious cooperation. We spend a lot of time with our co-workers and learn a lot about each other.
In between rushes we talk about our problems at work, in our personal life, with the immigration authorities. We are no longer a collection of separated individuals. We form informal groups of workers on the job which are capable of acting together.
We go out for a drink after work. These work groups then set the general work culture of the restaurant.
– Pagina 3 – Anarchistische Groep Amsterdam
If we are weak, the culture of the restaurant can come pretty close to the ideal of bigoted, separated individuals, and the work is absolutely miserable. In this case, our desire to escape from work may also be a desire to escape from our co-workers. If we are strong, we can make the work a lot less miserable. Since the work groups are based in the work process itself, the workers who take the lead in their formation and who set the work culture tend to be those that know the work process best.
This can be the people who have worked at a particular restaurant the longest, or the people who have worked in the food service industry the longest. The glue that holds these informal work groups together is a struggle against the work. This community of struggle cuts into profit-making, but it also tends to break down the divisions and hierarchies created by the production process. It is the basis for any broader fight against management.
The fact that work groups and the cultures they create are based in the work process means that the boss can undermine these groups by changing the work process. He can introduce a computer system to send orders to the kitchen to cut down on communication. He can introduce comment cards, give or take away employee meals, add inventory duties, or just fire people. By changing the shape of the restaurant he can change the patterns of communication, socialization and cut down on resistance.
The new shape then forms the basis for new work groups and new resistance. Generally speaking, the more conscious our solidarity has become, the more difficult it is to undermine. The boss has the production process, money, the weight of prejudice, custom, isolation, inertia, and ultimately the law and the police on his side.
We only have each other. At the most basic level, we often take an interest in the jobs of other workers. In slow times, a bored waitress will prepare simple foods in the kitchen, while the dishwasher asks questions about the difference between different kinds of wines. The fact that the work process is so chopped up and specialized feels strange and unnatural to us, and we want to go beyond it. In order to form any kind of work groups, we have to treat each other as equals.
This starts to undermine the divisions between skilled and unskilled and the hierarchy within the workers. In any restaurant the workers have to be able to manage the work themselves to a large extent. We have to be able to prioritize tasks, as well as communicate and coordinate with other workers. In smaller restaurants the boss will sometimes even leave and we will have to manage everything ourselves.
This means that our resentment towards the job often takes the form of a critique of how the restaurant is managed. We make comments about how if we managed the place, things would be different. We develop our own ideas about how food should be cooked and served, and about how much things should cost.
This is a constant cause of conflict, but it is also easily co-opted. Often the boss will simply give in to our desire to run things ourselves. The more disorganized and inefficient the restaurant, the more likely this is to happen. Some restaurant workers have made an ideology out of the struggle over the way the work is set up. They set up cooperative restaurants where there is no boss.
They do the work as well as make the management decisions themselves. In these restaurants, the workers are no-longer under the arbitrary power of a boss. They often eliminate some of the division of labor and the worst aspects of customer service. At the same time, they forget that the division of labor is brought about because it helps make money more efficiently.
Nieuw: 'popjihad', flirten met de symbolen van al-Qaeda
The boss is under a lot of pressure that comes from outside the restaurant. He has to keep his money in motion, making more money. They have merely rolled the position of boss and worker into one. No matter their ideals, the restaurant is still trapped within the economy. The restaurant can only continue to exist by making a profit. The work is still stressful and repetitive, only now the workers are themselves the managers. They have to enforce the work on themselves and on each other.
This means that workers in self-managed restaurants often work longer and harder and are paid even less than those in regular restaurants. They know that workers brought together in a restaurant will form groups. Instead of fostering isolation and prejudice, they foster community—a community that includes the restaurant management. This is especially common in small restaurants, where employees may even be related to each other and management.
The boss may explain how tough business is, especially for a small independent restaurant like his. The boss may be gay or a woman or from an ethnic minority and try to create some kind of community based on that identity. Whatever the community, the function is to smooth over the class struggle. We may have some problems, but our boss also has problems, and we have to come to some kind of compromise—a compromise that ends up with us working for them.
Unlike tipping, this is a purely ideological way of tying workers to the work, and tends to be less effective. With self-management, as with the community which includes management, we are supposed to enforce the work on ourselves and on each other.
Both are a response to our struggle against our situation that ultimately just creates a greater form of alienation. Our problem with restaurants is much deeper than just how they are managed. Generally speaking, restaurants are now, and have always been non-union.
Where unions have existed, they have followed the same path as unions in other industries, only less successfully. Restaurants often have a very high turnover. People only last a few months. They employ lots of young people who are only looking for part-time or temporary employment. This makes the creation of stable unions very difficult. But this state of affairs is as much a result of an unorganized industry as it is a cause. Many industries were like this before unions took hold.
In heavily unionized industries, employers have been forced to give up the power to hire, fire, and change job descriptions at will. Workers entrench themselves and defend this inflexibility. Restaurants, like many areas of the service industry, have to go where the demand is.
Restaurant workers tend to be spread out, working for thousands of small restaurant bosses, instead of a few large ones. If a restaurant goes on strike, the main effect is that other restaurants in the area will do a bit better business.
This puts us in a weak position, and means that employers are less likely to agree to pay higher wages in return for guaranteed production as they may be in other more decisive industries. There were elite craft unions which only tried to unionize waiters and cooks. There were industrial unions which would unionize anyone who worked in a restaurant or hotel in the same union.
Some of these, such as the Industrial Workers of the World, even refused to sign contracts with the employer. In eerste instantie werd gemeld dat het Syrische leger twaalf uur lang met tanks het plaatsje Houla zou hebben beschoten om een anti-regime demonstratie uiteen te drijven.
Tijdens dit bombardement waren de slachtoffers in Houla gevallen. Later bleek echter dat vrijwel alle slachtoffers om het leven waren gebracht door messteken of een kogel, die van dichtbij door het hoofd werd geschoten. Het is merkwaardig hoe weinig oog de internationale gemeenschap heeft voor deze twee totaal tegenstrijdige verklaringen.
Ooggetuigen De afgelopen dagen hebben drie verschillende bronnen op basis van getuigenverklaringen meer informatie naar buiten gebracht over het drama in Houla dat geplaatst dient te worden tegen de achtergrond van de totale anarchie die vooral in de regio Homs-Hama lijkt te heersen.
Houla is gelegen tussen Hama en de Libanese grens. Fides, een rooms-katholieke organisatie, liet op 30 mei weten dat grote groepen Syrische Alawieten en christenen naar Libanon vluchten om te ontkomen aan het geweld van gewapende bendes dat zich speciaal tegen hen richt.
De tweede bron betreft het klooster in Qara dat eveneens in de regio Homs-Hama ligt. Op mijn uitdrukkelijk verzoek stuurde het klooster mij alle informatie toe die men had weten te verzamelen met betrekking tot de gebeurtenissen in Houla. Velen hebben sinds 25 mei bescherming gezocht in de buurt van het klooster. Deze ooggetuigen, afkomstig uit dorpjes in de buurt van Houla, stemmen overeen in hun verklaring dat het Syrische leger op 25 mei jongsleden volstrekt afwezig was in de hele regio.
Rastan en Saan zijn twee plaatsen die volledig onder controle staan van het Free Syrian Army. Gewapende rebellen, wier aantal wordt geschat op tussen de en personen, zijn op donderdag 24 mei richting Hama getrokken waar ze het al-Watani ziekenhuis aanvielen en de bewakers doodden. In Tal Daw, een dorpje in de buurt van Houla, hebben deze gewapende opstandelingen vervolgens hele Alawitische families vermoord. Al deze lijken werden vervolgens in Houla voor de moskee verzameld.
Journalisten De derde bron betreft het ooggetuigenverslag van de twee Russische journalisten Marat Musin en Olga Kulygina die beiden met een tv ploeg op 25 mei aanwezig waren in Houla. Beide journalisten zagen dat gewapende rebellen uit Rastan op 25 mei rond