kimmy

What if instead of buying F35s or embarking on a ridiculous mission to build our own jet fighter, we bought an existing product? If we decided that we needed to stimulate the economy as well as buy jet fighters, then we could dump the bags of money we saved into the streets. -k

Unlike a Porsche salesperson, the service staff at a restaurant are an integral part of what the customer is paying for. What you want to restrict is the business's ability to provide the atmosphere and experience that its customers receive. -k

... Sure, other countries do the same thing, but not all of them. I think that most of the Arab countries, for example, just buy the planes because they're not under the illusion that they'll build a national avionics industry if they try to gravy-train enough local contractors into their purchase. Brazil just bought off-the-shelf (so to speak) Gripens... I gather the Czech Republic didn't even buy their Gripens, they're leasing them instead. -k

You've said the word transparency several times but steadfastly refuse to elaborate on it. Transparency between who and who regarding what? I'm not making it about you. I'm only addressing your argument, or lack thereof. And I believe that servers do have the same legal protection as other women working in the service industries. Porches? Do you mean the luxury car, or the place where you sip a beverage on a Sunday afternoon? In either case I think you're overestimating the sales power of cleavage. -k

I agree with you here. As I've mentioned previously I do feel the waitresses at the Bier Markt restaurant have a reasonable complaint because the Lieutenant Uhura dresses they were told to wear were definitely not what they signed up for. I'm not sure what the right way to handle that would be, but since it's the employer who changed the deal, I think the onus is on the employer to provide a solution. A layoff with reasonable severance, perhaps. -k

Ok, so why does Hooters get off the hook in your view? Tiny orange shorts doesn't have any more to do with serving overpriced chicken-wings than a Little Black Dress has to do with serving an overpriced steak. You've sought to create this artificial distinction between the two, by calling the one a "uniform niche market" or referring to it as "sex/food", but that's a completely artificial distinction that only exists in your head. Neither place is selling sex. Both places are selling an atmosphere. Sex appeal is part of the atmosphere. I don't see it as being a problem that Little Black Dress restaurants aren't as crass about it as Hooters is. -k

Not really, but I think it is worthwhile to make mention of just how deeply f***ed they truly are, lest some people get the impression that they're just some group with opposing views on political issues or that sort of thing. This isn't just anti-imperialism or so-on, this is full-on olden times barbarism. -k

Yes, Cruz has done a fine job pandering to Republican Primary voters who believe that science is revealed through the Bible, but if he wants to promote that idea in a general election he's gonna have a bad time. -k

It's about unwarranted government interference without any compelling public interest in doing so. If an employee is happy with the dress code at her place of work, the government has no business interfering. If the employee isn't happy with the dress code, she shouldn't have taken that job in the first place. As the Squid astutely points out, working in service and working in a factory aren't the same thing. I think you understand that being a waitress is not simply a matter of serving food. Earlier I proposed a waitress coming to work wearing sweat-pants and Crocs, and you said that was completely ridiculous. Well, if being a waitress was simply about serving food, sweat-pants and Crocs wouldn't be ridiculous. They would be completely adequate to the job of writing down orders and bringing food and drinks to tables. You know that sweatpants and Crocs are ridiculous, so obviously you recognize that the job isn't just a matter of recording orders and carrying food around. The service staff is a key part of the customer experience that the restaurant is selling. And what reason would you have to think that the dress code isn't discussed during the job interview? Why would you think that the waitress who ends up at an Earl's or a Cactus Club doesn't know what the dress code is like? You've still not managed to articulate a coherent arguent as to why it would be ok for Hooters to mandate the silly uniforms while not ok for places like Earl's et al to mandate the Little Black Dresses. And when pressed on the subject you conjure up this poorly-defined notion of "transparency", and when pressed on what that actually means, you respond with this idea that perhaps the dress code wasn't explained to the waitresses when they were interviewed. I'm sorry, but it seems like you're grasping at straws. -k

I don't think it's up to you or me or government bureaucrats to decide who a restaurant's target clientele is or whether the staff (or decor or menu) are appropriate. These are successful franchises we're talking about... they must have an idea what they're doing. I can't vouch for elsewhere, but the Kim City Cactus Club is among the busiest restaurants in town, which is why I keep mentioning it... I was there last week, had a find time, and enjoyed the atmosphere. Declaring that "These restaurants aren't right for their target clientele!" isn't a judgment call that you and I get to make. The accountants at the restaurant can figure out whether the business model is succeeding or failing. And if these restaurants were floundering, it still wouldn't change the argument any. If a business owner is struggling to attract customers, he or she has to figure out what to do to turn things around. Not you, me, or a bureaucrat. If crowds at Cactus Club fall off, then maybe the management will conclude "hey, our dress code might be turning away female customers" and ask the waitresses to wear cardigans and sensible shoes. Then again, they might conclude that it's the prices or the menu or any number of other things too. And I still don't understand what you mean by "transparency" or what a restaurant would do to become "transparent" in your opinion. Earlier, I snidely asked whether you were advocating for a big yellow sign that said "Caution: sexy waitresses" outside these restaurants... and I am now starting to wonder if that is, in fact, what you're calling for. -k

What makes Cruz the guy who should talk about science and high technology? Cruz is the last guy who should talk about science and high technology. He's invested too much energy in courting the vote of the evangelical "evolution is a lie, Earth is 6000 years old, climate change is a hoax" crowd to be the science and technology candidate. -k

Can you elaborate more on this transparency issue? Transparency between who and who? If it's between the employer and the employee, I don't have any reason to doubt that the employees are informed of the dress code when they're hired. Surely anybody who has been to an Earl's or a Cactus Club figures out how the waitresses dress in a matter of seconds. Surely the expectations are discussed at hiring time. Your examples-- what if you took grandma to a restaurant and the waitresses were too sexy? What if Chuck E Cheese decided the waitresses need to dress sexy? --seem to suggest that your concern is with protecting the customer, not the staff. I certainly don't want to put words in your mouth by guessing what you're trying to say. Could you explain explicitly what restaurants could do to provide the "transparency" you're calling for? Hypothetically, suppose I ran a restaurant where I want the waitresses to wear Little Black Dresses... how would I go about doing that in a manner that you wouldn't object to? If customers vote with their feet, that's fine. I just really object to the idea that government bureaucrats would give themselves license to interfere in issues that are none of their business. -k

This is kind of what I was thinking. Other countries use military procurement to procure equipment for their militaries. We in Canada seem to want to use military procurement as some kind of nation-building exercise to create jobs and goodies for communities around the country. What if, instead of trying to chisel some Canadian action out of the massive F35 project, what if we just went to Eurofighter and Saab and Dassault and said "we just want to buy fighters. Show us what you've got." Ultimately, we're buying fighter planes because we want to meet our military commitments, not because we want to create jobs, right? Well, yeah, but it would make more sense to go buy a Saab product than to cite Saab as an example of how easy it is to build airplanes. Their Gripen plane took 10 years and $13 billion to develop. For $13 billion we could order enough Gripens to replace our CF18s, have them sooner, and still have billions left over to spend on something more useful. -k

I will make a note to watch that. The last movie I saw was Deadpool. It was ridiculous, hilarious, insanely violent, crass, and thoroughly entertaining. It's a weird mash-up of super-hero movie, Seth Rogen comedy, and self-satire parody movie. It continually breaks the fourth wall, as the title character frequently speaks directly to the viewer, often to make wise-cracks about genre cliches. "who am I, and whose balls did I have to massage to get my own movie? well, here's my story..." "watch this. wait for it, she's going to do the super-hero landing. See? there it is! So hard on the knees." As he continues to bump into two characters from the X-Men franchise, he eventually asks "why are there just two of you? It's almost as if the producers didn't have the budget to hire more X-Men." It's like if Mad Magazine made a superhero movie. Deadpool tells the story of the wise-cracking and possibly insane mercenary-for-hire Wade Wilson from Regina Saskatchewan ("Regina, the town that rhymes with fun!") and how he finds love, endures tragedy, and becomes the costumed menace known as Deadpool. The story begins in the middle of a blah-blah-blah the details really aren't important, because this movie is really just about the non-stop barrage of action and laughter. This quickly became one of the top-grossing R-rated movies of all time, and it makes full use of the R rating by providing sex, violence, and extremely crude humor that would make Captain America blush. As the superhero movie genre becomes more and more crowded, this is one that provides something completely outside the box. It's definitely not for everybody, but this movie does what it intends to do and delivers aces. -k

The footwear thing I can see as being related to occupational health and safety. I think the waitresses at Cactus Club are familiar with the dress code or are informed of it when they apply. When I've interviewed for jobs at bars, the expectations for dress were always discussed. I was always asked if I was ok with that. I don't think the girls at these restaurants are under the impression that they can wear whatever they feel like when they accept the job. And as I said previously, I do have sympathy with the Bier Markt waitresses who had the tacky little dresses sprung on them unannounced, because that wasn't what they signed up for when they accepted the job. If a company changes the deal with the employees like that, they had better be prepared to reach some kind of fair settlement with employees who don't accept the new terms. You're not the first to notice this. We think it's because of the moderator status. -k

I fully agree that it would be ridiculous for Chuck E Cheese to require their waitresses to wear sexy uniforms. What we disagree about is whether there is a need for the government to intervene if they did so. IMO it would be an absurd business decision for Chuck E Cheese to require the waitresses to wear sexy uniforms. I suspect most people would anticipate that as well. But what would be your rationale for the provincial Human Rights Commission to get involved? It's not the HRC's concern as to whether the owners of a business are making unwise business decisions. Sometimes limits have to be imposed in the free market because there's a time and place for everything. Yes. But the standard for when limits are placed on the free market is that there needs to be a compelling public interest in doing so. What's the compelling interest in telling Chuck E Cheese what their waitresses can or can't wear? Who are we protecting, and what are we protecting them from? If it's supposed to be for the protection of the waitresses, then clearly the waitresses at Hooters also need protection. If it's the customers of Chuck E Cheese that need to be protected, what is it we're protecting them from? From the sight of a woman wearing sexy clothes? We as a society do not believe that is a harmful thing. From a dining experience that differs from what they were expecting? I don't believe that's something the government needs to be involved in. I think Earl's chose the path of least resistance to avoid a public relations battle. I have a hunch that next time I go to Earl's the waitresses won't be wearing cardigans and sensible shoes. This will all be forgotten in two weeks and the same people who go to Earl's expecting a certain atmosphere will continue to go to Earl's and the same atmosphere will be there waiting for them. And what is this "sex/food" industry? Unless you're talking about the lunch buffet at the local strip club, I don't know what the "sex/food" industry is. A brothel with a lunch counter? Restaurants aren't selling sex. They aren't selling food either. They're selling an experience. The attire of the waitresses is a part of that, as is the way the food is plated, the lighting, the furniture, the decor, the music, and thing else that you see, hear, and taste when you go out. I strongly oppose any attempt to regulate the experience a restaurant can provide its customers unless a compelling public interest can be demonstrated. I am in favor of restaurants not being allowed to serve fugu because the risk of people dying is just too high. I am not in favor of bureaucrats wandering around to decide whether the waitresses are dressed "too sexy" for what they believe the restaurant's target niche is supposed to be. If you're willing to interfere in the experience a restaurant provides its customers, then what else should they look into? "these vintage-style lightbulbs look cool but they are very inefficient. We're going to need you to remove them all and replace them with energy-efficient compact fluorescent or LED lighting"? "This romantic ambiance is just too dim... we need it brighter in here to reduce the chance of a customer tripping or slipping"? And maybe the idea of having sexy waitresses at Chuck E Cheese is actually a genius idea waiting to be discovered. Maybe it would give beleaguered fathers something to lessen the torture of screaming toddlers. I dunno. It's probably a stupid idea, but that's not for you or me to decide, it's for the people who run the restaurants. -k

The difference you're seeking to create-- uniform niche vs casual upscale or whatever-- is fictional and arbitrary. If you apply to work at either a Cactus Club or a Hooters, you know what you're expected to wear. Proposing that one restaurant's waitresses ought to be able to ignore the dress-code while those at the other can't doesn't make sense. Suggesting that the OHRC ought to be able to tell one restaurant to change their dress code but not the other doesn't make sense. It seems like you're trying to find some reason why it could be ok for Hooters to tell waitresses to wear tank-tops and tiny orange shorts, but not ok for Cactus Club to tell waitresses to wear a Little Black Dress. There's no justification for the OHRC to pursue one business over this but not the other. To be clear: is this about protecting Grandma's delicate sensibilities, or is it about protecting the workers? If it's the former, I don't see the problem. I think Grandma will be OK. If it's the latter I don't see why it would be OK for the waitresses at Hooters to be told how to dress, but not ok for the waitresses at Earls. -k

I read somebody suggest that Michigan has some regulation that polling be done on land-line phones, which would probably skew poll results heavily towards Clinton's direction (a poll of land-line users would be heavily weighted towards older people, as many younger people use cell-phones exclusively.) I haven't confirmed that Michigan has such a rule, but if it does it could explain why Sanders was so highly underestimated. The Michigan results aren't out of line with Sanders' results in other northern states. Outside the Deep South he has been very competitive. Sanders won Minnesota as well. Michigan has been battered by the loss of manufacturing jobs, and Clinton is a globe-trotting promoter of trade agreements that haven't worked out well for American workers in manufacturing jobs, so it's not entirely shocking that she wasn't that big of a hit in Michigan. -k

I don't think I was off topic at all. Why are you trying to limit discussion to restaurants outside the "Hooters" type niche? The the Ontario Human Rights Commission doesn't seem to be making that distinction, judging from the artlcle Boges cited. Based on the statements in that article, it appears that in Ontario, Hooters and sports bars had better change their business model to support sensibly dressed waitresses or face the wrath of the Human Rights Commission. That CBC tried to get a response from Hooters certainly makes clear that they don't see the "uniform niche market" being exempt. Why should a Hooters be able to mandate tiny shorts and tight tank-tops, but an "upscale dining" restaurant shouldn't be able to have a dress code mandating a tight-fitting above-the-knee black dress? Why should there be a distinction between the two based on "how they promote themselves"? Cactus Club shouldn't require their waitresses to wear Little Black Dresses because they're "upscale dining", but if they billed themselves as something different then it would become OK and cease to be an issue in your opinion? How would a business like Cactus Club, say, indicate to the public that they have waitresses in little black dresses? A sign that says "Caution, these premises are patrolled by attractive waitresses in sexy dresses"? And how will this standard of what constitutes "reasonable" dress? To avoid trouble, should Hooters and Earls and Cactus Club and the sports bars just call in the OHRC to design their uniforms for them? -k

Yes. As I said previously, a restaurant is not just providing food, they are providing an atmosphere and an experience. How about you? Do you feel an employee should be able to ignore their employer's dress code? -k

What if it's not worst case? Say it's not a granny dress or sweat pants, but still clothes that don't fit with the atmosphere the restaurant wants to create? "Yeah, I know all the other girls wear above-the-knee black dresses, but I just felt like dressing down today." -k

That's interesting, Slick. I wasn't sure what to expect from a Disturbed cover of Sound Of Silence, but that wasn't bad. Not the worst cover I've heard lately, for sure. Probably because they took it in quite a different direction from the original. At the opposite end of the spectrum, my radio has been invaded lately by this cover of the Rolling Stones' Shelter, which winds up sounding like a lame copy of the original. IMO trying to cover Shelter is probably one of the most thankless and pointless things that a rock music act could do. Right up there with trying to cover ... Bohemian Rhapsody? Stairway to Heaven? Space Odyssey? Unless you're going to do something completely different-- like Disturbed did above-- you'll just remind people that the original was really great and make them wish they were listening to that instead. If you want to cover Shelter, do it as a reggae song or a country song, but don't do it as if you were a Rolling Stones cover band. This is by "Stone Sour", whoever that is. Lzzy Hale gamely attempts to equal Merry Clayton's electrifying backing vocals, but falls far short, as does the lead singer. About all you can say as you listen to it is "it sounds like the original, but crappy." Get ready for 4 minutes and 20 seconds of wishing you were listening to the original version instead of this weak-ass imitation: -k

I feel like a restauranteur should be able to create the kind of atmosphere and customer experience that they want to. I think that if they make it clear in the employment agreement that this is how the wait staff are expected to dress, then it's reasonable to expect wait staff to dress that way. If a member of the wait staff later decides that they feel like showing up for work in a granny dress and saddle-shoes, or sweat-pants and Crocs, or whatever, I think like the employer should be allowed to send them home. The expectations were set out when you applied. I do have some sympathy for the Bier Markt waitresses who had the blue Lieutenant Uhura microdresses made of swimsuit fabric sprung on them out of the blue. That's certainly different from what they signed up for. -k

If I'm the manager at a Cactus Club, say, and one of my waitresses decides she wants to wear a full length granny-dress and saddle shoes, should I be required to accept her wishes? -k

It's less a matter of political spectrum and more a matter of gamesmanship, I believe. -k