[untitled]
76 comments
Flagged? Why?
Combine this approach with facial recognition and reporting to a website, and bad behavior could get you banned for years from all over. With an AR layer your "color" could visible to anyone that can see your face.
Too much reputation, or finally enough?
Too much reputation, or finally enough?
One downside would be that waitresses could abuse it by giving men that they don't like for personal reasons a bad reputation.
This is such an elegant and repayable system that I hope it becomes SOP for customer-facing service workers everywhere.
I don't think you have considered this reply.
Imagine getting a code yellow from a line cashier while doing your groceries, because she doesn't like the way you look. So she calls her manager and he has to ring you up, while everyone else is looking at you with daggers in their eyes. She can't say to you WHY she called them, because code yellow means "you look creepy." But hey, you wait their five minutes for him to finish the order while she takes a smoke break.
Any time someone describes something as elegant, they usually are wrong. Real life is too messy for elegant solutions.
Imagine getting a code yellow from a line cashier while doing your groceries, because she doesn't like the way you look. So she calls her manager and he has to ring you up, while everyone else is looking at you with daggers in their eyes. She can't say to you WHY she called them, because code yellow means "you look creepy." But hey, you wait their five minutes for him to finish the order while she takes a smoke break.
Any time someone describes something as elegant, they usually are wrong. Real life is too messy for elegant solutions.
Under this system the manager would only have to take over with a yellow if the cashier specifically requested it.
> But hey, you wait their five minutes for him to finish the order while she takes a smoke break.
...
> Real life is too messy for elegant solutions.
Real life is too messy to expect any system to map perfectly to all situations. To do so is to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
> But hey, you wait their five minutes for him to finish the order while she takes a smoke break.
...
> Real life is too messy for elegant solutions.
Real life is too messy to expect any system to map perfectly to all situations. To do so is to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
[deleted]
off-topic: washington post has a paywall. When something is posted on HN and elsewhere do most users just not have the ability to read or am I missing something?
I use share2archive app on my Android phone usually can read 90% of the pay wall articles
> Are paywalls ok?
> It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds.
> In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
There are a number of ways to get around paywalls, I for example use a firefox extension called "bypass paywalls".
> It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds.
> In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
There are a number of ways to get around paywalls, I for example use a firefox extension called "bypass paywalls".
I didn't notice a paywall. Is that one of those paywalls that only kicks in after N articles per month?
Open it up in an incognito tab, you can read as many NYTimes and WaPo articles as you want in an incognito tab. WSJ's paywall does not allow this.
Great system, and a fantastic implementation of "zero tolerance" with direct, mandatory, non-disruptive, face-saving manager intervention.
This sounds great except consider me very skeptical about the yellow status.
If the server decides that I don't look right, they can choose not to serve me and I have to wait for a manager to serve me?
You know that Denny's lost a $54 million lawsuit over this practice, right? Racial profiling in the hospitality biz is very real.
If the server decides that I don't look right, they can choose not to serve me and I have to wait for a manager to serve me?
You know that Denny's lost a $54 million lawsuit over this practice, right? Racial profiling in the hospitality biz is very real.
Denny's lost a $54MM lawsuit over, among other things, refusing to seat black people, including a collection of black Secret Service agents, or deliberately forcing black people to wait longer to get a table, or, in some cases, requiring black people to pay more for their food.
So, no, even if we (weirdly) stipulate the idea that creepers are a protected class, the Denny's situation is not comparable to what's happening here.
So, no, even if we (weirdly) stipulate the idea that creepers are a protected class, the Denny's situation is not comparable to what's happening here.
I'm not at all stipulating that creepers are a protected class, I'm saying that the tipped food service industry has a racism problem and this is a really easily gamed system that people will think they can exploit to make more money than their coworkers.
Your sort of concern will be easily handled on a one off basis. It's pretty easy to notice.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/43dybb/the-shitty-reality...
"In 2015, the Washington Post examined tipping culture in the US restaurant industry. Looking at a survey of 1,000 servers, 34 percent responded that they believed black diners to be "very bad" tippers, in comparison to white diners who 98 percent believed to be "average" or "above average" tippers."
"In the first study where white servers believed black diners were "very bad" tippers, over half of those who responded said they "don't always give their best effort when waiting on black customers.""
"In 2015, the Washington Post examined tipping culture in the US restaurant industry. Looking at a survey of 1,000 servers, 34 percent responded that they believed black diners to be "very bad" tippers, in comparison to white diners who 98 percent believed to be "average" or "above average" tippers."
"In the first study where white servers believed black diners were "very bad" tippers, over half of those who responded said they "don't always give their best effort when waiting on black customers.""
...and yet racism among servers is still a problem.
I absolutely loved your optimism and single-step, hand-wavey-approach to solving racism, though.
"In a world where nobody's racist, nobody will be racist! It's perfect!"
I absolutely loved your optimism and single-step, hand-wavey-approach to solving racism, though.
"In a world where nobody's racist, nobody will be racist! It's perfect!"
My point was that a server who constantly drops black diners on the manager is going to get noticed by the manager. He should do his job and manage things.
victimology and the oppression hierarchy make for incredibly amusing logical inconsistencies. the amusement is compounded when it’s aimed at ensuring people are never even remotely uncomfortable
Well, the thing about both yellow and orange, is that there is no actual retaliation against the customer. The manager takes over table service and that's the end. That can happen to a customer if their server's shift is ending or for any number reasons. Having a "dealing with this" level below retaliation seems like the key to this process.
And it's notable that approach runs counter to all of the retaliation-based approaches that this society currently seems to enjoy.
And it's notable that approach runs counter to all of the retaliation-based approaches that this society currently seems to enjoy.
Do you not think people won't figure this out, when they see the manager always serve them in a restaurant, but everyone else gets a normal waitress? When I ask that waitress for the check, and the manager comes instead after fifteen minutes, because he had to be taken from the back room and interrupted from balancing the days take, I won't know?
How is this a problem? If you actually have done something wrong, then realizing what's happening just means you're put on notice and you might want to take a hard look at your behavior. If you haven't done anything wrong and the server is abusing the system, then you either won't care, or you might choose to patronize the establishment less, either of which is fine.
Normal division of labor means you're going to get slower service from a manager than from a server. It's a simple math problem.
Most of the restaurants around here the manager is literally just standing there watching to see what's happening. If they were to wait my table, I'd expect to get awesome service.
> Well, the thing about both yellow and orange, is that there is no actual retaliation against the customer.
Yeah I like that part. Maybe the customer is having a bad hair day, maybe they are autistic or homeless. There is no need to kick them out or confront them if they haven't said or done anything bad. Just have a way to quickly pass the handling to someone else and move on.
Yeah I like that part. Maybe the customer is having a bad hair day, maybe they are autistic or homeless. There is no need to kick them out or confront them if they haven't said or done anything bad. Just have a way to quickly pass the handling to someone else and move on.
I assume by not looking right you mean the act of looking and not looking like your appearance? I believe that's the article was referring to the former and not the latter.
Assuming you did mean the former, I find it fascinating that your comment went from not looking right to racial profiling which seem completely unrelated.
What made you think of that?
Assuming you did mean the former, I find it fascinating that your comment went from not looking right to racial profiling which seem completely unrelated.
What made you think of that?
A lifetime of being treated poorly by strangers because of my physical attributes.
The point is, if you interpret the policy properly, it's plainly obvious that a server can label someone a yellow (for any reason) and choose not to serve them.
Lots of servers have preconceived notions about who is going to tip well.
The point is, if you interpret the policy properly, it's plainly obvious that a server can label someone a yellow (for any reason) and choose not to serve them.
Lots of servers have preconceived notions about who is going to tip well.
The restaurant doesn't stop serving the "yellow" customers; those customers are served by senior staff. Nothing prevents junior staff from providing worse service to minorities as it stands, so using a system in which your actions are documented and engage management to discriminate seems like an awfully dumb way to accomplish a racist goal.
Unless your management is also racist, agrees to serve them but "when they get around to it". As in "I'm doing payroll right now, I'm busy." (aside: Ask any low-wage employee across any industry whether they get adequate support from their managers and the answer is almost surely "no". That certainly was my experience in nearly a decade of retail.)
That's sort of how these systems perpetuate isn't it?
Maybe if you just had to just stfu and deal with serving everyone, you get the opportunity to realize that X person isn't bad and actually does tip.
That's sort of how these systems perpetuate isn't it?
Maybe if you just had to just stfu and deal with serving everyone, you get the opportunity to realize that X person isn't bad and actually does tip.
You're no worse off with the manager-takes-over scheme, though. Without this scheme, you just end up with a shitty racist server that gives you shitty service. With the manager taking over when the shitty racist server abuses the system to foist off customers they're bigoted against, either you end up with a shitty racist manager (so you have the same situation), or a good manager that actually gives you good service. And the good manager also has the opportunity to see that you're a good customer and draw the conclusion that the server that dumped you did so for shitty, racist reasons.
> Maybe if you just had to just stfu and deal with serving everyone, you get the opportunity to realize that X person isn't bad and actually does tip.
That's the current situation though, right? Seems like it's not working.
> Maybe if you just had to just stfu and deal with serving everyone, you get the opportunity to realize that X person isn't bad and actually does tip.
That's the current situation though, right? Seems like it's not working.
The guy feeling up the waitress probably tips pretty well, too.
Racism doesn't require intent. It can manifest completely unintentionally by subconscious acts, especially when subtle racism is so prevalent and reinforces negative stereotypes.
Sorry for the double reply but I wanted to separate this from my other comment...
For someone in the industry that you're/we're in, I'm a little bit surprised by your level of optimism; in this case, that a loosely-defined social system works as intended when almost always strictly defined encoded systems (software, hardware, legal, etc) do not. Either the intended system is not accurately defined or it didn't expect everything.
Almost all of my peers/coworkers in infosec are extraordinarily pessimistic, see the flaws first, and from very far away.
For someone in the industry that you're/we're in, I'm a little bit surprised by your level of optimism; in this case, that a loosely-defined social system works as intended when almost always strictly defined encoded systems (software, hardware, legal, etc) do not. Either the intended system is not accurately defined or it didn't expect everything.
Almost all of my peers/coworkers in infosec are extraordinarily pessimistic, see the flaws first, and from very far away.
Probably a good reason to ban tipping. There was a restaurant in new york that did that experiment, interestingly they reported some male customers getting angry that they couldn't show off via tipping.
100%. That would definitely solve that problem while introducing another.
The entire restaurant business is propped up by investor money and artificially low wages. We have a large multiple more restaurants than we actually need because it serves Wall St. and the government ("job creation").
Such a change could put 80% of the industry out of business in maybe a year.
The entire restaurant business is propped up by investor money and artificially low wages. We have a large multiple more restaurants than we actually need because it serves Wall St. and the government ("job creation").
Such a change could put 80% of the industry out of business in maybe a year.
Just raise the food prices by 15-20% to account for loss due to tips.
It's more than that. It has to be 25%-30% to also cover all the extra payroll tax that the restaurant now has to pay. In the end you lose customers to restaurants that aren't doing this. And if all restaurants do this, you just end up with people eating out less to the point where overall you're losing money.
The result of this is that people eat out less.
And worse, the places where people have smaller dine-out budgets are also where all of the low-wage chain restaurants are clustered. All of those youth and unskilled labor jobs in the suburbs are pretty much in restaurants.
It's inexcusable that people in restaurants are being exploited for their labor, but I think we absolutely have to figure out an alternative before putting them out of work.
And worse, the places where people have smaller dine-out budgets are also where all of the low-wage chain restaurants are clustered. All of those youth and unskilled labor jobs in the suburbs are pretty much in restaurants.
It's inexcusable that people in restaurants are being exploited for their labor, but I think we absolutely have to figure out an alternative before putting them out of work.
The customer ends up paying the same amount just the tips are added into the prices.
More. The restaurant can't just raise prices 15-20%, they have to raise them more. Tipped workers make their money working hours when it's busy, but restaurants have to be open and have staff during hours that are not.
If you give wait staff a normal wage, restaurants have to have more workers on hand when it's less busy and there are more other labor laws regarding wage and hour minimums that they'll lose exemptions from.
If you give wait staff a normal wage, restaurants have to have more workers on hand when it's less busy and there are more other labor laws regarding wage and hour minimums that they'll lose exemptions from.
How about commission-based pay, where wait staff get a base wage plus a per-table commission. So basically just like tipping, but without the customer discretion part of it.
It's pretty trivial to get "(perhaps unintentional) racist says black dude doesn't look right" out of this, given how prevalent racism is in our society, and how the default reaction to non-whites is generally more negative in any given context.
[deleted]
Presumably a manager would notice a server constantly asking them to take over a certain class of tables and fix the problem.
Given the games I've seen servers and hosts/hostesses play around who gets to seat who and where, it's much more complex than that.
> You know that Denny's lost a $54 million lawsuit over this practice, right?
Over having the manager serve people? Do you have some reference that explains what you're referring to?
In practice, if the manager sees that server X often/always calls yellow on group Y, it becomes the manager's job to educate, train, or fire server X.
Over having the manager serve people? Do you have some reference that explains what you're referring to?
In practice, if the manager sees that server X often/always calls yellow on group Y, it becomes the manager's job to educate, train, or fire server X.
Denny's lost a $54 million lawsuit for serving people slower for being black.
The problems with the described practice are pretty apparent if you've ever a) worked in tipped food service or b) been black.
The problems with the described practice are pretty apparent if you've ever a) worked in tipped food service or b) been black.
Once again, do you have a reference to this?
And that wouldn't have to be a consequence of this policy. It would, however, require the manager to be as prompt as the server. This should be possible to do if they're paying attention to the issue, because the manager should be handling far fewer tables than a server.
And that wouldn't have to be a consequence of this policy. It would, however, require the manager to be as prompt as the server. This should be possible to do if they're paying attention to the issue, because the manager should be handling far fewer tables than a server.
https://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/25/us/denny-s-restaurants-to...
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-05-25/news/mn-62027_1_civil...
Alas, the actual examples aren't fully enumerated (to the tune of some 4,500 complaints). The syntax of "slow service" in the cited examples is in seating customers.
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-05-25/news/mn-62027_1_civil...
Alas, the actual examples aren't fully enumerated (to the tune of some 4,500 complaints). The syntax of "slow service" in the cited examples is in seating customers.
Beautiful solution. No debate about interpretation or intent, and over the top stuff gets immediate action. And, from the other side, no serious consequences for questionable yellow items if it de-escalates. Many of the women in my life have been wait staff, and it can be harrowing.
That is a great work. And it highlights the importance of information flow to leadership - in any business there's a fog of war between leadership and the front line and as leader, one of your main jobs is creating systems that will ensure the information you need reaches you.
Because remember, the woman in the story had two problems:
First, customers were harassing her employees.
Second, she didn't know about it until there were numerous incidents.
Because remember, the woman in the story had two problems:
First, customers were harassing her employees.
Second, she didn't know about it until there were numerous incidents.
It's a much better UI for the servers at the restaurant. If you want people to take a specific action - requesting that a manager take over a specific problematic table - you need to make that action easy. If you don't make it easy, people won't do it as often. Describing an offense in detail and trying to negotiate a manager takeover is far from easy. Saying that table 5 is a code orange is easy.
Any reason why restaurants don't file a formal complaint with police? As in, even in the red case there which is for touching, they just tell the customer to leave. AFAIK, this type of case won't require much effort especially with CCTV and it will send a strong message to harassers if significant number of business starts doing that.
The costs of calling the police to your own restaurant are wayyyyy higher than you seem to be thinking. Everybody in the building will remember their time at your restaurant as "that one time the police showed up and took that guy in who was screaming the whole time about how the hostess is lying and he's a father of a family of four, goddammit!"
Even in the best case, where the cops show up, talk to the guy, cite him (or something) and leave, something like touching/grabbing a staff member or making inappropriate comments is going to be really hard to catch or prove in a court... Having your manager go up to the table and calmly tell him that it's time to go is going to be way less likely to disrupt other customers.
And last, what restaurants have you been to that have CCTV? Fast food, definitely, but I don't remember the last time I sat down for a nice meal out and noticed security cameras on the walls. This produces an atmosphere similar to calling the cops into your restaurant: you're implying that people who go there are sketchy enough to deserve being surveilled or brought in by the authorities at any point.
Even in the best case, where the cops show up, talk to the guy, cite him (or something) and leave, something like touching/grabbing a staff member or making inappropriate comments is going to be really hard to catch or prove in a court... Having your manager go up to the table and calmly tell him that it's time to go is going to be way less likely to disrupt other customers.
And last, what restaurants have you been to that have CCTV? Fast food, definitely, but I don't remember the last time I sat down for a nice meal out and noticed security cameras on the walls. This produces an atmosphere similar to calling the cops into your restaurant: you're implying that people who go there are sketchy enough to deserve being surveilled or brought in by the authorities at any point.
Every restaurant I’ve been to has cameras, at a minimum around cash drawers.
I’m scary good at spotting cameras though. It’s a weird skill.
In fact, I’m at a fancy restaurant at a yacht club in the Cayman Islands right now and spotted 2 cameras.
I’m scary good at spotting cameras though. It’s a weird skill.
In fact, I’m at a fancy restaurant at a yacht club in the Cayman Islands right now and spotted 2 cameras.
Because the police are not equipped to handle "petty" sexual assault cases as a routine. The only process they have to resolve these problems, besides enforcing a restaurant manager's request that a patron leave the building (which isn't a real problem), is to take a complaint and make an arrest, which is expensive not only for the victim but also for the accuser.
People have weird ideas about what the police do. Much as they'd like to pretend otherwise, they aren't referees or mediators.
People have weird ideas about what the police do. Much as they'd like to pretend otherwise, they aren't referees or mediators.
Touching is obviously a crime, but saying whatever outlandish thing you want to say, or whatever horrible gestures, etc, isn't a crime anywhere I know of in the US. Sitting down and asking the waitress "hey, cutie...wanna fuck?" is obviously terrible, but not criminal.
It's not even criminal between employees, even if it's your boss. Fireable offense, yes. Civil tort, maybe. But nobody is going to jail.
It's not even criminal between employees, even if it's your boss. Fireable offense, yes. Civil tort, maybe. But nobody is going to jail.
Do you think any bussiness is ever going to trust the police after what happened to United Airlines?
Economic self-interest? It takes worker time to file formal complaints and involve the police, and if they can get the customer banned that's all the owners really need.
This is a great idea. It's a 3-color system that lets women report different levels of harassment, and their supervisor is required to take different types of actions, no questions asked.
> The color system is elegant because it prevents women from having to relive damaging stories and relieves managers of having to make difficult judgment calls about situations that might not seem threatening based on their own experiences. The system acknowledges the differences in the ways men and women experience the world, while creating a safe workplace.
> The color system is elegant because it prevents women from having to relive damaging stories and relieves managers of having to make difficult judgment calls about situations that might not seem threatening based on their own experiences. The system acknowledges the differences in the ways men and women experience the world, while creating a safe workplace.
The recognition that harassment has ranges of severity, and providing a proportional response to all of it is great. Too many places present a strict zero-tolerance policy on paper, and then are far too lax on enforcement, which leads to jadedness all around. On one side are people that are legitimately upset at the unfairness of the strict policy, and on the other people legitimately upset that harassment isn't be addressed (or both). As a result various people are discouraged from reporting both because they worried about overreaction and because they don't think they will be taken seriously, which is a horribly dysfunctional state to be in.
Not second-guessing the reporter is also much better than the alternative. Even if there is some abuse (like any system has), the fact that the staff can avoid dealing with people they dislike by claiming a yellow will mean that most abuse will be with yellows, and thus fairly inconsequential in the big picture.
Not second-guessing the reporter is also much better than the alternative. Even if there is some abuse (like any system has), the fact that the staff can avoid dealing with people they dislike by claiming a yellow will mean that most abuse will be with yellows, and thus fairly inconsequential in the big picture.
This is such a cool idea.
On another note, I was delighted when I read the word "Homeroom" - I've only eaten there once, but it's such a fantastic restaurant! I have to go back next time I'm in the area.
On another note, I was delighted when I read the word "Homeroom" - I've only eaten there once, but it's such a fantastic restaurant! I have to go back next time I'm in the area.
Clickbait
"We knew that we had to create something that didn’t rely on men making judgment calls on women’s stories"
Wow, that's incredibly sexist. Could it simply be those specific managers that didn't recognize the problems? It's not all men! I stopped reading here because it's obvious she has a severe bias and is blind to it.
Wow, that's incredibly sexist. Could it simply be those specific managers that didn't recognize the problems? It's not all men! I stopped reading here because it's obvious she has a severe bias and is blind to it.
> It’s not all men!
Oh jeez the lack of self-awareness
Oh jeez the lack of self-awareness
Awareness of what? She said men aren't capable of doing that right because they are men. Replace "men" with "women" or "blacks" to test if it sounds sexist.
> She said men aren't capable of doing that right because they are men.
Could you cite that, please? The bit you quoted above says her system doesn’t rely on mens’ judgement. It makes no claims that they aren’t capable of doing it right. It’s a system independent of that question.
Could you cite that, please? The bit you quoted above says her system doesn’t rely on mens’ judgement. It makes no claims that they aren’t capable of doing it right. It’s a system independent of that question.
This is also a good approach for when travelling, or even just out, with one or two friends.
Agree a set of escalating code words or actions that mean something like "take care", "come help me with this situation" and "we are leaving now, no questions asked."
Give everybody the power to make these signals and ensure that everybody else reacts immediately.
We all sense danger differently, and the best way to avoid problems is to work as a group, and to trust the people who you are friends with.
Agree a set of escalating code words or actions that mean something like "take care", "come help me with this situation" and "we are leaving now, no questions asked."
Give everybody the power to make these signals and ensure that everybody else reacts immediately.
We all sense danger differently, and the best way to avoid problems is to work as a group, and to trust the people who you are friends with.
I'd love to make that female chef sit through a yellow status, and explain to her that she has an unsavory look and a creepy vibe. I'm sure she'd be perfectly happy being served by a manager, knowing that being served by one means you have offended the server by doing absolutely nothing apart from looking a certain way, or triggering bad feelings in her just by existing.
Because women never, ever expect these systems to affect them. If some guy refused to serve women because they looked like bitches, he'd be fired. If some women refuses to serve men because they look unsavory and have a creepy vibe, well, you get a nice article in the wapo and knowing nods.
Because women never, ever expect these systems to affect them. If some guy refused to serve women because they looked like bitches, he'd be fired. If some women refuses to serve men because they look unsavory and have a creepy vibe, well, you get a nice article in the wapo and knowing nods.