Guess who’s not in this picture: You. This editorial piece from the New York Times was a long time coming. Micheline Maynard lists all the reasons why YOU shouldn’t aspire to become a restaurateur or a chef just because you’ve watched the Food Network since its conception or happen to have read all of Anthony Bourdain’s books. Everybody likes food, everybody cooks, so you are not special. Just because you eat every day doesn’t make you an expert. It’s humbling and a bit of a gnar-kill, but I mean, I’m still going to write in my blog as an amateur foodie anyway.
Maynard writes:
“While restaurants have long been a dream for the hospitality-minded, the industry has never had such a high profile, thanks to the Food Network and celebrity chefs whose restaurants have become launching pads to marketing empires.
The allure is easy to understand, said Peter Rainsford, the vice president for academic affairs at the Culinary Institute of America and co-author of “The Restaurant Startup Guide.”
“So many people love to cook, they like food, and they think, boy, I’ll have a job where I’ll do what I love,” Mr. Rainsford said. “They don’t realize how hard a job it is, both financially and physically.”
2 Comments
August 27, 2008 at 10:58 pm
1. Appellant claims that even if a bailment is not found to exist, appellee had an independent duty to protect employees’ tools from foreseeable criminal acts. Appellant claimed that Indiana courts recognize a general principle that an employer has the duty to protect its employees against the employer’s own negligence. Appellant also cited torts case law from external jurisdictions supporting its argument, which state that the employer has a legal duty to protect employees from foreseeable criminal conduct (p.11, ¶ 2-3)
1a. By not taking steps to protect employees from foreseeable misconduct of others, Firestone breached that duty since the employees were victim of theft and damage. Appellant claims that there is a material issue of fact as to whether appellant should have reasonably foreseen the risk and acted reasonably to protect against the theft (p.12, ¶ 1)
September 4, 2008 at 12:30 am
nerd.