Behind the kitchen door: the hidden costs of taking the low road in chicagoland's thriving restaurant industry

Primary Research Support Provided by
Ted Smukler, De Paul University
LaNysha Adams, Restaurant Opportunities Centers United
Editorial Support Provided By Nirupama Jayaraman
Design by Christopher Chaput
February 9, 2010
Funding Provided By:
Chicago Foundation for Women
The Ford Foundation
The Woods Fund
The Chicago Community Trust
By the Restaurant Opportunities Center of Chicago, the Restaurant Opportunities
Centers United, and the Chicagoland Restaurant Industry Coalition
Behind the Kitchen Door:
The Hidden Costs of Taking the Low Road in
Chicagoland’s Thriving Restaurant Industry

Primary Research Support Provided by
Ted Smukler, De Paul University
LaNysha Adams, Restaurant Opportunities Centers United
Editorial Support Provided By Nirupama Jayaraman
Design by Christopher Chaput
February 9, 2010
Funding Provided By:
Chicago Foundation for Women
The Ford Foundation
The Woods Fund
The Chicago Community Trust
By the Restaurant Opportunities Center of Chicago, the Restaurant Opportunities
Centers United, and the Chicagoland Restaurant Industry Coalition

Executive Summary
i
Executive Summary
Behind the Kitchen Door: Pervasive Inequality in Chicagoland’s Thriving Restaurant Industry was conceived of and
designed by the Chicagoland Restaurant Industry Coalition - a broad gathering of academics, policy analysts, worker
advocates, worker organizers, unions, restaurant workers and restaurant industry employers. This report represents
one of the most comprehensive research analyses of the restaurant industry in Chicago.
The report uses data from 582 worker surveys, 29 one-hour interviews with restaurant workers, and 31 one-hour in-
terviews with restaurant employers in Chicago. The results of this primary research are supplemented by analysis of
industry and government data, such as the Census, as well as a review of existing academic literature.
Our study was inspired by the need for examination and analysis of the overall health of the restaurant industry,
which is fundamental to Chicago’s economy and critical to the lives of thousands of restaurant workers and em-
ployers. The restaurant industry is an important and growing source of locally based jobs, and provides considerable
opportunity for the development of successful businesses. It is therefore essential to make information about the
industry from the perspectives of both workers and employers available to all stakeholders to ensure the industry’s
sustainable growth.
A Resilient and Growing Industry
Chicago is home to a vibrant, resilient, and growing restaurant industry. The industry includes approximately 9,000
food service and drinking places that make significant contributions to the region’s tourism, hospitality and enter-
tainment sectors and to its economy as a whole. In fact, Chicago has the second largest restaurant industry in the
nation.
Perhaps the industry’s most important contribution to the region’s economy is the thousands of job opportunities
and career options it provides. In 2008, the gross domestic product by metropolitan area from the accommodations
and food services sector was $12.7 billion. Since 1995, employment growth in the food services sector has outpaced
that of the Chicago region overall. Restaurants employ almost 140,000 workers in Cook County alone and almost
250,000 workers in Chicagoland – 6.8% of the region’s total employment. Since formal credentials are not a require-
ment for the majority of restaurant jobs, the industry provides employment opportunities for new immigrants, whose
skills and prior experience outside the United States may not be recognized by other employers, workers who have
no formal qualifications, and young people just starting out in the workforce.
Many Bad Jobs, A Few Good Ones
There are two roads to profitability in the Chicago restaurant industry – the “high road” and the “low road.” Res-
taurant employers who take the high road are the source of the best jobs in the industry – those that provide living
wages, access to health benefits, and advancement in the industry. Taking the low road to profitability, on the other
hand, creates low-wage jobs with long hours, few benefits and exposure to dangerous and often-unlawful workplace
conditions. Many restaurant employers in the Chicago area appear to be taking the low road, creating a predomi-
nantly low-wage industry in which violations of employment and health and safety laws are commonplace.
While there are a few “good” restaurant jobs in the restaurant industry, and opportunities to earn a living wage, the
majority are “bad jobs,” characterized by very low wages, few benefits, and limited opportunities for upward mobil-
ity or increased income. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median wage for restaurant workers
is only $8.86, compared to a median wage of $17.28 for all workers in Chicago.
In our own survey of restaurant workers, the vast majority (90.5%) reported that they do not have health insurance
through their employers (see further Chapter III: Workers’ Perspectives). Earnings in the restaurant industry have
also lagged behind that of the entire private sector. In terms of annual earnings, restaurant workers on average made
only $17,844 in 2008 compared to $55,409 for the total private sector.

Executive Summary
ii
A majority of workers in our study reported overtime and minimum wage violations, lack of health and safety train-
ing, and failure to implement other health and safety measures in restaurant workplaces. Almost one-third of the
workers surveyed in our study (32.6%) experienced overtime violations and 28.5% reported working “off the clock”
without being paid.
Workers of color are largely concentrated in the industry’s “bad jobs,” while white workers tend to disproportion-
ately hold the few “good jobs.” Workers of color also reported discriminatory hiring, promotion and disciplinary
practices: 21.8% of all workers reported being passed over for a promotion, or receiving less pay than another in the
same position and 42.8% of those workers felt that the unequal treatment was based on race (see further Chapter
V: Segregation & Discrimination).
The Social Costs of Low-Wage Jobs
Our research also reveals the “hidden costs” to customers and taxpayers of low-wage jobs and low road workplace
practices. Violations of employment and health and safety laws place customers at risk and endanger the public. For
example, restaurant employers who violate labor laws are also more likely to violate health and safety standards in
the workplace – such as failing to provide health and safety training, or forcing workers to cut corners that harm the
health and safety of customers (see further discussion in Chapter VI: The Social Cost of Low-Wage Jobs).
The pervasiveness of accidents coupled with the fact that so few restaurant workers have access to benefits such as
paid sick days and health insurance have negative impacts on workers as well as consumers and taxpayers. 96.2%
of all workers surveyed reported not having access to paid sick days, and 75.9% reported working while sick. In ad-
dition, 90.5% reported not having access to employer-provided health insurance, which can lead to escalating un-
compensated care costs incurred by public hospitals. For example, 15.8% of surveyed workers reported that they or
a family member had visited the emergency room without being able to pay for their treatment.
Finally, low wages and lack of job security among restaurant workers lead to increased reliance on social assistance
programs, which results in indirect subsidies to employers who are engaging in low road practices. A key finding of
our research is that whenever restaurant workers and high road employers are hurt by low road practices, so is the
rest of society.
The High Road Is Possible
It is possible to create good jobs while maintaining a successful business in the restaurant industry. Our interviews
with employers revealed that as long as there is an enduring commitment to do so, it is possible to run a successful
restaurant business while paying living wages, providing benefits, ensuring adequate levels of staffing, providing
necessary training, and creating career advancement opportunities.
In fact, 22.3% of the workers we surveyed reported earning a living wage, and similar numbers reported receiving
benefits, thereby demonstrating both the existence of “good jobs” and the potential of the industry to serve as a posi-
tive force for job creation. Workers who earn better wages are also more likely to receive benefits, ongoing training
and promotion and less likely to be exposed to poor and illegal workplace practices. For example, workers earning
$16.48 per hour were also much more likely to have health insurance than workers earning less than the minimum
wage of $7.75 per hour.

Executive Summary
iii
Our Recommendations
The Chicagoland Restaurant Industry Coalition recommends the following steps to address the workplace problems
documented in our study:
1. Level the playing field by providing paid sick days and increasing the tipped minimum wage.
Policymakers should require all employers to provide paid sick days to their employers, and raise the
minimum wage for tipped workers to be closer to the minimum wage for all other workers.The lack of
paid sick days can result in public health challenges for the entire region.
2. Incentivize high road practices. Initiatives and incentives should be considered to assist and encourage
employers to provide living wages, basic health care benefits, and advancement opportunities to restaurant
workers. Such initiatives could include rent and property tax incentives for employers who implement
stellar workplace practices, and subsidies to employment-based health insurance or support of collective
health insurance provisions across the industry.
3. Promote opportunity, penalize discrimination. Policy makers should explore initiatives that encourage
internal promotion and discourage discrimination on the basis of race and immigration status in the
restaurant industry.
4. Labor, employment and health and safety standards should be strictly enforced. Employers must
be educated about their legal responsibilities towards their employees concerning health and safety
standards. Agencies should provide employers with the necessary support to observe their obligations to
their workers and to the public. It is in the interest of both workers and the public at large that existing
standards be observed and enforced.
5. Promote model employer practices. Model employer practices should be publicized to provide much-
needed guidance to other employers in the industry.The vast majority of employers we interviewed agreed
in theory that high road workplace practices were better. However, many did not appear to implement
them in practice.
6. Allow workers the right to organize. Barriers to organizing restaurant workers should be addressed.The
public benefits of unionization in this and other industries should be publicized as significant benefits to
workers and employers.
7. Support further industry research. Further study and dialogue should be undertaken that includes
the perspectives of restaurant workers, employers, and decision-makers. Such dialogue can help
ensure effective and sustainable solutions to the issues identified in our study – especially race-based
discrimination, and the impacts of the industry’s practices on health care and public program costs.
The information collected here from workers, employers, and industry experts is critical to ensuring that the Chicago
metropolitan area’s restaurant industry truly shines as not only an important contributor to the region’s job market
and economy, but also to the well-being of its workers and communities.

Executive Summary i
Chapter I: Introduction & Methodology 1
Chapter II: Overview of Chicagoland’s Restaurant Industry 4
Chapter III: Workers’ Perspectives 12
Chapter IV: Employers’ Perspectives 24
Chapter V: Segregation & Discrimination 36
Chapter VI: The Social Cost of Low-Wage Jobs 48
Chapter VII: Conclusions & Policy Recommendations 54
Appendix & Endnotes 56
© Copyright 2010 Restaurant Opportunities Centers United (ROC-United)
Table of Contents

Chapter I
1
C H A P T E R I
Introduction and Methodology
The Chicago restaurant industry has enormous potential, both as an employer and as an engine of economic
growth. Over the past twenty years, the food and beverage service sector has expanded, and despite the recent eco-
nomic downturn, it continues to outpace other industries.1
Unlike many jobs in the manufacturing and technology
sectors, restaurant jobs cannot be outsourced. For this reason, they are anticipated to occupy an ever larger share of
the region’s economy in the near future.
ABOUT THIS STUDY
This study was conceived and designed by the Chicagoland
Restaurant Industry Coalition - a broad gathering of academics,
policy analysts, worker advocates, worker organizers, unions,
restaurant workers and employers.
Data were collected from 582 worker surveys, in-depth interviews
and focus groups with 29 restaurant workers, and 31 interviews
with restaurant industry employers in Cook County, collected
over a one-year period. The results of this primary research are
supplemented by analysis of secondary industry data and a
review of existing academic literature.
This project was inspired by the need for examination and
analysis of the overall health of an industry increasingly in its
importance to Chicago’s economy and critical to the lives of
thousands of restaurant workers and employers. The restaurant
industry is an important and growing source of locally based
jobs and provides considerable opportunity for development
of successful businesses. It is therefore essential to make
information about the industry from the perspectives of both
workers and employers available to all stakeholders to ensure
the industry’s sustainable growth.
The region’s restaurants are an important source of
jobs – particularly for people of color, new immi-
grants and young people just starting in the work-
force.2
Thousands of Chicagoland restaurant work-
ers earn living wages and receive health care
benefits. The industry also offers opportunities for
joining the ranks of the many entrepreneurs who
have fulfilled their dream of opening their own res-
taurants. Most jobs in the industry, however, are
characterized by low wages - sometimes below
poverty level – no health insurance, no sick and va-
cation days, few advancement opportunities, and
exposure to poor and illegal workplace conditions.
Our primary research, review of existing literature,
and analysis of government and industry data re-
veal that there are two roads to profitability in the
Chicago restaurant industry – the high road and
the “low road.” Restaurant employers who take the
high road are the source of the best jobs in the in-
dustry – those that enable restaurant workers to
support themselves and their families, remain
healthy, and advance in the industry. Taking the
low road to profitability, on the other hand, creates low-wage jobs with long hours and few benefits. It ultimately
harms workers, other restaurant employers, consumers, public health, and taxpayers.
Our research and existing government and industry statistics indicate that the majority of employers in Chicago’s
restaurant industry, like employers in other parts of the country, are employing low road workplace practices, con-
tributing to the creation and perpetuation of a predominately low-wage industry in which few workers enjoy basic
workplace benefits and safe and healthy working conditions. These practices often lead to violations of workers’ basic
rights, as well as federal and state wage and hour laws and health and safety regulations. As a result, as the restaurant
industry creates jobs, it has the potential to create jobs that allow workers to support their families, but often instead
ends up contributing to the proliferation of “bad” jobs in the current economy – jobs that cannot sustain workers,
their families, and our communities. Our worker surveys and interviews illustrate the impacts such bad jobs have
on people’s lives.
Our interviews with employers highlight many of the factors that drive them to take the low road to profitability,
often against the principles of good business practice they espouse, as well as strategies employed by some restau-
rant employers to overcome these factors. It is possible to achieve success in the restaurant business by pursuing the
“high road,” but employers’ ability to do so is undermined by pervasive use of low road workplace practices, creating
an unlevel playing field. Our research also demonstrates the importance to public health – and public coffers – of
encouraging and supporting the majority of restaurant employers to improve practices.

Chapter I
2
TERMS USED IN THIS REPORT
“Front of the House” and “Back of the House” refer to
restaurant industry terms for the placement and function of
workers in a restaurant setting. Front of the house generally
represents those interacting with customers in the front of the
restaurant including wait staff, bussers and runners. Back of the
house workers generally refer to kitchen staff including chefs,
cooks, food preparation staff, dishwashers and cleaners.
“High road” and “low road” are industry terms referring to
opposing business strategies for achieving productivity and
profitability. In this report, “high road” is used to denote
employer practices that involve investing in workers by paying
living wages, providing comprehensive benefits, opportunities
for career advancement, and safe workplace conditions as a
means to maximize productivity. The results of such high road
practices are often reduced turnover as well as quality food
and better service. “Low road” refers to strategies that involve
chronic understaffing, failing to provide benefits, pushing
workers to cut corners, and violating labor laws, and health
standards.
In our research, we also found a high degree of sep-
aration – and racial disparity – in wages and working
conditions between white workers and workers of
color in the Chicago restaurant industry. Our re-
search suggests at least two key factors contributing
to these disparities: (1) racial segregation by occupa-
tion or position; and (2) racial segregation by indus-
try segment. High levels of racial segregation by oc-
cupation are demonstrated by the divide between
the “front of the house” workers, such as servers and
bartenders with whom diners interact, and those
who remain hidden in the “back of the house.” Res-
taurant workers in the “front of the house” generally
receive higher wages, better working conditions,
training, and advancement opportunities than those
behind kitchen doors. The majority of white workers
in the Greater Chicago restaurant industry are em-
ployed in front of the house positions. Workers of
color are largely concentrated in the back of the
house – in the lowest paid jobs requiring the longest
hours, featuring the greatest health and safety haz-
ards, and offering the fewest advancement opportunities. In addition to these disparities, restaurant workers we
spoke with reported experiencing high levels of verbal abuse, excessive discipline, and barriers to promotion they
believed to be based on race and immigration status. Patterns of segregation that resulted in differences in wages and
employment opportunities were also apparent in the industry segments which employ Chicago restaurant workers.
White restaurant workers were significantly more likely to be employed in fine dining establishments, whose price
points offer the highest concentration of living wage jobs in the industry. By contrast, African-American workers
were much more likely to be employed in the lower-paying quick-service segment of the industry.
This report includes the perspectives of both high road and low road employers, the experiences of workers, govern-
ment and industry data, and academic research. In effect, we have created a unique and rich source of information
on the metropolitan area’s restaurant industry to help guide efforts to end discriminatory workplace practices, and
promote the high road business model to serve as a positive engine of economic growth in Chicago.

C H A P T E R II
Overview of Chicagoland’s
Restaurant Industry

Chapter II
4
C H A P T E R II
Overview of Chicagoland’s
Restaurant Industry
A. A Significant and Growing Industry
The restaurant industry is increasingly significant for Chicago, especially as manufacturing jobs decline. Food ser-
vices and drinking places are one of Illinois’ largest employers.3
The tourism industry, which includes the restaurant
industry, is now considered one of Chicago’s largest and fastest-growing industries.4
Cook County is home to ap-
proximately 9,500 food services and drinking places, a number that grew substantially in the 1990s, and is expected
to keep growing.5
The restaurant industry is a key contributor to Chicagoland’s tourism and hospitality sectors, and to the economy as a
whole. In 2008, the gross domestic product by metropolitan area from the accommodations and food services sector
was $12.7 billion.6
The restaurant industry makes up over 70% of the accommodation and food services sector, and
has an annual average growth rate of 5% in millions of dollars contributed to the local economy.
Although considerable skills are needed to work in this industry, no formal credentials are generally required, mak-
ing restaurants a particularly viable source of employment for workers who have not had the opportunity to pursue
formal training. Restaurant employment also serves as an important entry point into the job market for new immi-
grants to the United States, whose credentials and experience abroad are often not recognized by other employers.
B. How Many Jobs?
As indicated in Table 1, the “Food Services and Drinking Places” sector provides almost 250,000 jobs per year in the
Chicago metropolitan area (hereafter “food services sector”), and more than 171,000 jobs in Cook County alone.7
In
fact, the food services sector contributed to 73% of employment in the “Leisure and Hospitality” supersector.8
The
restaurant industry has been one of the largest and fastest-growing sectors of the Chicago economy, second only to
the government and healthcare. Now, the food services sector employs more people than a wide variety of both old
and new economy industries such as finance, securities, and construction.9
TABLE 1: Employment in the Food Services Sector and Other Select Industries,
Chicagoland, 2009
Industry Employment (in 1000s) Share of Total Employment
Total Division Non-farm Employment 3692.9 100.0%
Health Care and Social Assistance 413.7 11.2%
Leisure and Hospitality 341.9 9.3%
Manufacturing 331.1 9.0%
Food Services and Drinking Places 249.9 6.8%
Hospitals 148.4 4.0%
Construction 149.9 4.1%
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics, July 2009
In this table, Chicagoland refers to the Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL Metropolitan Division which includes Cook, DeKalb, DuPage,
Grundy, Kane, Kendall, McHenry and Will counties
Note: Industry Categories are not mutually exclusive
The restaurant industry has the potential for providing low-wage workers with access to advancement to jobs that
will allow them to support their families. This is evidenced by the fact that the industry is growing and there are liv-
ing wage jobs. From our survey data, 12.3% of all workers surveyed reported an hourly wage of $18.31 or higher.

Chapter II
5
Since 1992, employment growth in the food services sector has outpaced that of general employment in Chicago-
land. 10
Figure 1 depicts employment growth in the food services sector from 1990 to 2008, compared to job growth
in the overall region. Even during the current economic crisis, the restaurant industry has not nearly suffered the
kind of job loss locally or nationally experienced by the economy as a whole. From January 2008 until December
2008, the economy as a whole experienced a 3.5% job loss, while the restaurant industry experienced 2.3% job loss.11
Even as late as December 2007 in Chicago, while the rest of the regional economy was experiencing serious decline,
the restaurant industry continued to experience growth (see Figure 1). Since the beginning of the recession in De-
cember 2007, manufacturing and construction job losses have accounted for the overwhelming majority of the job
loss in the entire state.12
0.9
1.2
1.5
Food Services & Drinking Places
Total Division Employment
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1990=1.00
FIGURE 1: Job Growth in Food Services and Drinking Places
and Total Employment, Chicagoland, 1990-2008
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics, July 2009
Note: Chicagoland refers to the Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL Metropolitan Division which includes Cook, DeKalb, DuPage, Grundy,
Kane, Kendall, McHenry and Will counties.
C. What Kind of Restaurant?
The food services sector includes four distinct industries: full-service restaurants, limited-service eating places, spe-
cial food services and drinking places.13
The restaurant industry generally includes the first two of these categories;
namely, full-service restaurants and limited-service eating places. Although the Census does not distinguish be-
tween different types of full-service restaurants, we see both ‘fine dining’ restaurants and ‘family-style’ or ‘franchise’
restaurants falling within this category. Limited service restaurants are also known as ‘quick serve’ – restaurants that
do not offer waiter service.
Table 2 details employment levels for each of these two types of restaurants between 1990 and 2008. Over this pe-
riod, employment growth in full-service restaurants outpaced that of other parts of the industry, increasing its share
of industry-wide employment.

Chapter II
6
Within full-service restaurants and limited-service eating places, we have identified three general sub-segments of the restaurant
industry which are presently not specified in government data, but were most useful for understanding the varying practices
and strategies used by individual businesses.
Fine dining, or what is commonly referred to as “-tablecloth” restaurants;1.
Family-style restaurants, also described as “casual dining,” including both franchise or chain restaurants such as Olive2.
Garden or Applebee’s, and smaller establishments, frequently neighborhood-based and/or ethnic restaurants;
Fast-food or “quick-serve” restaurants.3.
We also found through the interviews with employers that workplace practices are driven by factors such as whether a restaurant
is part of a hotel, a larger corporation, chain or group and how many other restaurants the owner has, if any. We found that the
majority of the fine dining restaurants are part of restaurant groups or are one of multiple (three or more) restaurants under the
same owner. Non-franchise, family-style restaurants are overwhelmingly singly owned or one of two restaurants owned by the
same party. These trends had profound impacts in terms of employers’ power, or lack thereof, to define standards and policies
that affect their business and buying power, which is a key component of their competitiveness and profitability in the industry.
TABLE 2: Restaurant Industry Employment, Chicagoland,
1990 and 2008 (In thousands)
Year Full-Service Restaurants Limited-Service Eating Places
Restaurant Industry Employment, 1990 84.3 65.2
Restaurant Industry Employment, 2008 117.9 96.6
Change in Employment, 1990-2008 33.6 31.4
Percentage Increase in Employment, 1990-2008 18.05% 16.86%
Share of Food Services Sector in 1990 45.27% 35.02%
Share of Food Services Sector in 2008 46.88% 38.41%
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics
In this table, Chicago Metropolitan Area refers to the Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL Metropolitan Division which includes Cook, DeKalb,
DuPage, Grundy, Kane, Kendall, McHenry and Will counties
D. Where are the Jobs?
While the restaurant industry is widespread throughout the seven counties that comprise what is known as Chica-
goland, this report focuses on Cook County. As indicated by the data contained in Table 3, Cook County accounts
for more than two thirds (67.5%) of the Chicagoland’s employment in full service restaurants, and almost two thirds
(64.4%) of the state’s limited service eating places.

Chapter II
7
TABLE 3: Employment by County in the Restaurant Industry, Chicagoland, 2007
Full Service Employees Limited Services Employees
Chicagoland Total 100.00% 100.00%
Cook 67.49% 64.40%
DuPage 15.31% 14.21%
Will 6.18% 8.27%
Kane 5.47% 6.24%
McHenry 3.49% 3.37%
DeKalb 0.94% 1.67%
Grundy 0.50% 0.64%
Kendall 0.62% 1.20%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns 2007
E. Who Gets the Jobs?
Most jobs in the restaurant industry do not require much formal education, and, with the exception of chefs and
sommeliers, employers generally do not require workers to have educational degrees or vocational certification. This
is not to say that restaurant workers do not have skills or that restaurant work is not demanding. Back of the house
workers, often working in hot, cramped workspaces, must be able to complete the tasks required to accurately fill
orders in a timely and quality fashion in a high pressure environment. Front of the house staff and other employ-
ees who interact with customers need strong interpersonal skills, time and task management skills, and a working
knowledge of food preparation and presentation.
The industry is consequently an important source of jobs and income for large numbers of new workers who do not
have formal training or are new to the workforce. The industry is also a source of employment for women, youth,
people of color and immigrants – particularly new immigrants, whose prior education and experience abroad is often
not recognized by employers in the U.S.
F. What are the Characteristics of the Workforce?
The Chicago restaurant industry is extraordinarily diverse, with no majority ethnic group, substantial immigrant
populations, and almost equal numbers of men and women. Whites, Latinos, and African-Americans comprise the
largest racial groups in the industry, with substantial numbers of Asian American workers as well. The industry is
also fairly diverse in terms of age.
Not much has changed in terms of the industry’s demographics from 2000 to 2008. The most dramatic difference in
restaurant worker characteristics during this period was an increase in educational levels among restaurant workers-
fewer workers with less than a high school education, and more workers with high school and bachelor’s degrees.
There has also been a slight (4%) increase in the proportion of Latino workers in the industry, and an equivalent
decrease in the proportion of black workers. There has also been a slight increase in the proportion of workers who
speak English very well.
Compared to the overall Cook County workforce, Chicago restaurant workers are more diverse. The restaurant
workforce has a higher percentage of Latino and mixed race individuals than the overall Cook County workforce.
Restaurant workers are also more likely to be immigrants and non-native English speakers, and less likely to have
a college education.

Chapter II
8
Table 4: A Demographic Profile of Cook County Restaurant Workers,
2000-2008 (column percentages)
Restaurant Workers 2008 Only
2000 2008
Difference
(2008-2000)
All Cook
County Workers
Difference (Restaurant
Workers – All Workers)
Gender Male 52.7 52.1 -.6 51.4 0.7
Female 47.3 47.9 .6 48.6 -0.7
Age 16-24 38.6 35.6 -3 14.7 20.9
25-44 42.5 43.6 1.1 44 -0.4
45-64 16 18.3 2.3 35.4 -17.1
65 and older 2.9 2.4 -.5 6 -3.6
Race/Ethnicity Non-Hispanic White 37 37.8 .8 49.3 -11.5
Non-Hispanic Black 21.8 17.8 -4 22.2 -4.4
Asian 6.9 6.8 -1 6.4 0.4
Hispanic/Latino any race 32.2 36.1 3.9 21 15.1
2 or more races and Other 2.1 1.5 -.6 1.2 0.3
Nativity Citizen by Birth 63.5 63.6 .1 73.5 -9.9
Foreign Born 36.5 36.4 -.1 26.5 9.9
World area of
Birth
US 63 62.8 -.2 72.8 -10
Latin America 24.4 25.1 .7 13.1 12
Asia 7.3 7.2 -.1 6.3 0.9
Europe 4.7 4.5 -.2 6.7 -2.2
Africa 0.5 0.2 -.3 0.7 -0.5
Other 0.1 0.1 0 0.3 -0.2
Years in US Born in the U.S. 62.2 62.6 .4 72.1 -9.5
0-5 11.1 6.7 -4.4 3.7 3
10-Jun 8.1 7.3 -.8 5 2.3
15-Nov 6 6.8 .8 4 2.8
16-20 4.7 6.8 2.1 3.9 2.9
21 or more 7.9 9.9 2 11.4 -1.5
Ability to Speak
English
Speaks very well 37.5 45.4 7.9 53.2 -7.8
Speaks well 25.5 20.5 -5 21.9 -1.4
Speaks, but not well 26.3 26.2 -.1 19 7.2
Does not speak English 10.7 7.9 -2.8 6 1.9
Education Less than High School 43.3 28.3 -15 14.1 14.2
High School Degree 25.7 31.4 5.7 22.7 8.7
Some College 22.4 27.9 5.5 28.8 -0.9
Bachelors Degree and Higher 8.6 12.4 3.8 34.4 -22
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Public Use Micro Sample from US Census (2000) and American Community Survey (2008).
Note: Difference is percentage point

Chapter II
9
G. What do the Jobs Look Like?
Jobs in the restaurant industry generally fall into one of three categories, each corresponding to different levels of compen-
sation, potential for mobility, access to training, workplace conditions, and other important indicators of job quality:
1. Managers and supervisors, including chefs
2. Front of the house positions
3. Back of the house positions
H. What do the Jobs Pay?
While the industry does provide some living-wage jobs, the data in Table 5 shows that the restaurant industry offers mostly
low-wage jobs. According to the Bureau of Labor statistics, the median wage for all restaurant occupations in Chicago-
land is $8.86 an hour. Eighty-two percent (82.38%) of workers in the industry are employed in jobs for which the hourly
median wage is below $10.00.14
As will be discussed in greater detail in Chapters III: Workers’ Perspectives and Chapter
V: Segregation & Discrimination, people of color hold the majority of the lowest paid jobs in the restaurant industry.
Data show that the Chicagoland restaurant industry is an important and growing source of income and employment. As this
industry grows, it creates more low-wage jobs than living wage jobs. The restaurant industry contributes almost 250,000 jobs
to the Chicagoland economy, but 82% of those jobs pay less than $10 per hour. And, given the industry’s growing reliance
on immigrants and people of color, it is communities that are already marginalized that occupy these low-wage jobs.
Table 5. Employment and Median Wages for Food Preparation and Serving
Related Occupations in Chicagoland, 2008
Occupation Employment share Median hourly wage
All workers $8.86
Chefs and head cooks 1.44% $15.80
First-line supervisors/managers of food preparation and serving workers 6.27% $15.16
Cooks, fast food 5.30% $8.17
Cooks, institution and cafeteria 2.72% $11.75
Cooks, restaurant 6.85% $10.70
Cooks, short order 1.16% $9.71
Cooks, all other 0.33% $13.16
Food preparation workers 11.64% $9.32
Bartenders 5.05% $8.81
Combined food preparation and serving workers, including fast food 19.55% $8.09
Counter attendants, cafeteria, food concession, and coffee shop 5.46% $8.08
Waiters and waitresses 17.64% $7.99
Food servers, nonrestaurant 2.06% $8.96
Dining room and cafeteria attendants and bartender helpers 4.98% $8.50
Dishwashers 4.68% $8.15
Hosts and hostesses, restaurant, lounge, and coffee shop 3.12% $9.22
Food preparation and serving related workers, all other 1.75% $9.50
Under $10.00 per hour 82.38%
Footnotes:
(1) Estimates for detailed occupations do not sum to the totals because the totals include occupations not shown separately. Esti-
mates do not include self-employed workers.
(2) Annual wages have been calculated by multiplying the hourly mean wage by 2080 hours; where an hourly mean wage is not
published the annual wage has been directly calculated from OES reported survey data.
(3) Wages for the OES survey include base rate, cost-of-living allowances, guaranteed pay, hazardous-duty pay, incentive pay includ-
ing commissions and production bonuses, tips, and on-call pay.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics Survey for Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL Metropolitan Division, 2008

Chapter II
10
While restaurant jobs in the Chicago metropolitan area have grown, restaurant wages over the past decade have
not experienced the same growth. As Figure 2 illustrates, growth in average annual earnings in the industry has
lagged behind that of the entire private sector in Chicago. In 2009 dollars, 2001 private sector annual earnings av-
eraged $52,645, but only $17,670 in the restaurant industry. By 2008, private sector earnings had increased by 5.3%
to $55,409 a year, while wages in the restaurant industry increased by 1%, to $17,844 over the same period. Thus,
restaurant wages grew much more slowly than wages in other economic sectors, despite the growth in the industry
during the same period.
In sum, while the Chicago metro area restaurant industry is a growing source of income and employment, earnings
lag far behind those of other private sector workers in the city, raising concerns about the proliferation of low-wage
jobs. The restaurant industry contributes close to 250,000 jobs to the Chicago metro economy, and over 171,000 to
Cook County alone but 82% of those jobs pay less than $10 per hour.15
And, given the industry’s growing reliance
on immigrants and people of color, it is already marginalized-communities that occupy these low-wage jobs.
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
All industries
Restaurants
20082007200620052004200320022001
AverageAnnualEarnings
Figure 2: Average Annual Earnings by Industry, Cook County, 2001-2008
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages
Note: Earnings are deflated using the CPI-U for Midwest Urban.

C H A P T E R III
Workers’ Perspectives

Chapter III
12
C H A P T E R III
Workers’ Perspectives
The information summarized in this chapter represents a compilation of the results of 582 surveys and inter-
views and focus groups with 29 restaurant workers conducted between September 2008 and May 2009. By speak-
ing directly with Chicago restaurant workers, we gained more insight on the daily experiences of workers in the
metropolitan region’s eateries. We were also able to collect new data regarding the overall quality of their workplace
experiences.
Where earnings are concerned, our research results are consistent with existing data – the major-➜➜
ity of restaurant workers we spoke with reported very low wages.
Most restaurant workers do not receive benefits such as employer-provided health coverage, paid➜➜
sick days, or vacation days.
Most restaurant workers we spoke with do not receive regular raises, promotions, or ongoing job➜➜
training.
More than half the restaurant workers in our study are not paid overtime in contravention of gov-➜➜
erning laws. We also received reports from some workers that they were not being paid at all for
any hours they worked beyond 40 despite routinely being required to do so.
A majority of workers surveyed reported health and safety hazards at their workplace, compound-➜➜
ed by a pervasive lack of health and safety training. In addition, many of the workers we spoke
with reported getting injured on the job.
Workers reported that assertions of their rights were met with verbal abuse and threats of retaliation.➜➜
Workers earning low wages are less likely to receive benefits,more likely to be exposed to poor health and safety conditions,
less likely to be provided with job or health and safety training, and less likely to benefit from advancement opportuni-
ties. Conversely, workers earning living wages are more likely to receive health insurance and benefits, and work in safer
environments.

Chapter III
13
A. Introduction and Methodology
While a majority of jobs are low-wage, low-road jobs in the restaurant industry, our survey research shows that the
low road is not the necessary path in this industry. At least one tenth of the workers we surveyed reported earning
living wages, and similar numbers reported enjoying comprehensive benefits, opportunities for career advancement,
and better workplace conditions. While these workers are in the minority, their experiences reflect the reality that
some restaurant employers in the industry are pursuing the high road to profitability. The employer perspectives
summarized in the next chapter offer important insight as to how the conditions described in this chapter can be
addressed.
This study was motivated in part by the current dearth of quantitative and qualitative data documenting the experi-
ences of restaurant workers in the Chicago. In an effort to pick up where official and industry statistics leave off, the
Chicagoland Restaurant Industry Coalition designed a survey to capture detailed information regarding individual
workers’ experiences beyond hour and wage data. The survey instrument explored the availability of benefits, work-
ing conditions, hiring and promotion practices, the existence of job-specific training opportunities, employer dis-
crimination, and the nature of working conditions in the industry. Stratified random sampling methods were chosen
to provide an accurate proportional representation of restaurant workers in Cook County. Stratification was used as
a sampling technique to ensure that our sample was truly representative.16
To add to the rigor of the survey design
and administration, we weighted the data according to front and back of the house in full-service and limited-service
restaurants to improve the precision of our estimates. Weighting was used to compensate for over- or under-sampling
and for disproportionate stratification, and to ensure unbiased estimates of restaurant worker population totals.17
The survey was administered from September 2008 and May 2009 by staff, members, and volunteers from the Res-
taurant Opportunities Center of Chicago – a community-based organization with significant contacts among res-
taurant workers and access to workplaces in the industry. A total of 582 surveys were conducted face-to-face with
workers in Cook County after workers’ shifts were completed or during breaks. We sought to capture experiences
in all types of restaurants, and surveyed workers in each of the three main segments of the industry.18
Furthermore,
our sampling frame, or set of participants from which the sample was drawn, consisted only of workers employed
in the industry.19
Additionally, in order to obtain a holistic picture of the daily lives of individual restaurant workers, qualitative inter-
views and focus groups were conducted with a total of 29 workers to gain in-depth information about the nature of
working conditions. A general interview guide approach was used to conduct the one-on-one in person interviews.
The guide, developed by Dr. Manny Ness of Brooklyn College, contained standardized open-ended questions to
ensure that the same general areas of information were collected from each interviewee. Interviewers were trained
how to use the guide to conduct semi-structured, conversational interviews.20
B. Earnings
“But people really don’t know [how much we get paid]. Like I had a woman who got really upset
about it when I told her -- you know like, servers don’t really make like an hourly rate. She thought
like you get ten dollars an hour and the tips are extra. I was like...no.” – Male, 4 years in the indus-
try, Server
Our survey data is consistent with government and industry statistics demonstrating that restaurant work is primar-
ily low-wage work.
Seventy-eight percent (78%) of workers surveyed in our study reported earnings of less than $16.48 an hour. Five
percent (4.6%) of this group did not earn minimum wage – even when tips were accounted for. Twenty-two percent
(22.3%) of workers surveyed reported making a living wage. A living wage “affords the earner and her or his family
the most basic costs of living without need for government support or poverty programs”21
and was calculated using
the Economic Policy Institute’s Basic Family Budget Calculator. (See side box for wage group definitions).

Chapter III
14
Methodology for Definition of Wage Groups for Survey Data Analysis:
Real wages were determined by either calculating workers’ average weekly earnings including tips and dividing by the average
number of hours worked per week or, for un-tipped workers, using their hourly wage. Wage groups were then created using the
Illinois State minimum wage at the time the survey was conducted ($7.75), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
2008 federal poverty line earnings for a family of three of $17,600 per year, and the Economic Policy Institute’s (EPI) Basic Family
Budget Calculator. The following six factors were chosen to calculate a living wage: a) Housing, b) Food, c) Transportation, d)
Healthcare, e) Taxes and f) Other basic necessities. Definition of wage groups and distribution of the sample population across
groups can be seen in Table 6.
Table 6: Wages Earned by Restaurant Workers
Less Than Minimum Wage (< $7.75) 4.6%
Below Poverty Line ($7.75 –$8.45) 15%
Low Wage ($8.46 - $16.47) 58.1%
Living Wage ($16.48 and higher) 22.3%
Source: Chicagoland Restaurant Industry Coalition survey data
Over half of workers in our sample (58.1%) reported earning low wages, and one-fifth (19.6%) reported earning wages
below the poverty line. The impact of occupational segregation, which will be discussed further in Chapter VI: The
Social Cost of Low-Wage Jobs is substantial; even though the median wage of our entire survey population was $11 an
hour, when workers of color earnings were taken out of our sample, the median wage rose to $14.56 an hour.
The earnings picture is slightly different for restaurant
workers when compared to other workers because an
exception to minimum wage laws is made for workers who
regularly receive tips. As a result, restaurant employers in
the State of Illinois are permitted to pay tipped workers
minimum wages of $4.65 per hour, or 60% of the state
minimum wage, as long as tips make up the difference
between $4.65 and the state minimum hourly wage of
$7.75 (at the time the survey was conducted). If they do
not, the employer must pay workers the difference.22
In Illinois, however, tipped workers are not guaranteed
the full minimum wage for each individual hour or shift
that they work. Federal regulations allow employers to
average out their workers’ tips over a full workweek,
complicating the tip tracking system and making it
vulnerable to employment law violations under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).23
Twenty-eight percent (28%) of the workers surveyed in
our study reported that they were born in another country,
and 36% of these workers reported that did not have legal
status to work in the United States. Their actual proportion
in the restaurant workforce is likely even higher given the
possible reluctance of workers to report their immigration
status or “off the books” employment. Despite the legal
implications of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control
Act (IRCA),24
which made it illegal to knowingly hire
or recruit immigrants who do not possess lawful work
authorization and required employers to attest to their
employees’ immigration status, many employers with
whom we spoke stated that undocumented immigrants
are widely employed in the industry. Various reports and
news stories confirm that the restaurant industry provides
an entry-point for undocumented workers, particularly
because of the opportunities to earn cash by the hour
– even when earnings are below federal and state
mandated minimum wages.25
Census data is unlikely to
capture the earnings of these workers.

Chapter III
15
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO LIVE ON A RESTAURANT WORKER’S EARNINGS?
According to the American Chamber of Commerce Researchers Association’s (ACCRA) Cost of Living Index, which is based on
the composite price of groceries, housing, utilities, transportation, health care, clothing, and entertainment, Chicago’s cost of
living is on par with the national average, making it even harder for low-income workers to make ends meet;26
According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), while the Fair Market Rent for a two-bedroom unit in the
Chicago metro area27
is $1,004, an extremely low-income household (earning $22,470 or 30% of the Area Median Income of
$74,900) can afford monthly rent of no more than $562.28
On average, a restaurant worker earning $11.00 per hour can afford
monthly rent of no more than $572 for a two-bedroom unit. For workers to afford a Fair Market level of rent and utilities, without
paying more than 30% of their income on housing, their household must earn $3,347 monthly or $40,160 annually. The typical
restaurant worker would have to work approximately 76 hours per week in order to afford a two-bedroom unit at the area’s Fair
Market rent. NLIHC determined that the “Housing Wage” – the amount a full time worker must earn per hour in order to afford
a two-bedroom unit at the area’s Fair Market rent – in the Chicago metropolitan area is $19.31.
C. Benefits
“Thank goodness, I am single but I do have a friend who knows somebody in the health insurance in-
dustry, but I am still paying $150 a month for health insurance and I mean it is not the greatest. It has
no pharmacy or anything so that’s a nice chunk when you are not making that much money” – Male, 4
years in the industry, Various Back of the House positions
The majority of restaurant workers surveyed reported that they do not receive basic workplace benefits. The data
in Table 7 reveals that the vast majority of workers surveyed do not have health insurance through their employers
(90.5%), over half (53.4%) reported not having any type of health insurance coverage at all, and 15.8% went to the
emergency room without being able to pay. An overwhelming majority reported that they do not get paid sick days
(96.2%) or paid vacation days (87%).
Table 7: Job and Health Benefits Reported by Restaurant Workers
Employer does not provide health insurance 90.5%
Do not have any health insurance coverage 53.4%
Do not get paid sick days 96.2%
Do not get paid vacation days 87%
Have worked when sick 75.9%
“Well, for me, it’s your life, it’s how you pay your bills and the way I saw it was, you work with these people. But I know I shouldn’t
get friendly or personal with these people but, you know, you spend so much time together, and you make jokes together and
you try to work and have fun at the same time. What I noticed was the owners of this restaurant that I used to work at they were
more concerned about my production than my well-being, or how I got along with everybody. And one of the owners came
over to me and said, ‘Well, now that you’ve done all your duties and all the work that you’re supposed to do, why don’t you go
to the back of the house and bring in, you know, this furniture, and I thought, you’re giving me something to do and I’m going to
break my back and you don’t even provide me with insurance.’ So we had this big-big argument and he said, ‘Get back and do
your job or else you’re fired.’ And it was like, you don’t ‘get it’. Like, I break my back in here and who’s going to take care of me,
who’s going to feed me, who’s going to pay my bills, I’m only supposed to work in the restaurant. I’m not your maid!” – Male, 9
years in the industry, Busser, Barback, & Server
“I believe that the restaurant industry should be a store bound type of a job. Whether workers are a waitress bartender or a
dishwasher. I believe everybody should get the same benefits as someone you know who works in an office gets dental. They
work way more hours, they are doing the same labor. They’re doing overtime. Working in a restaurant is hard labor. It’s really
hard labor. I think that someone who works in the restaurant industry should get the same benefits as someone in the corporate
office.” – Female, 2 years in the industry, Server

Chapter III
16
The majority of the workers we interviewed reported that they were unable to get unpaid time off when they needed
it, particularly when they were sick. As a result, 75.9% of the workers we surveyed reported working while sick. These
numbers should be of concern to the general public because food is one of the major avenues through which com-
municable diseases are spread. If workers are coming in to the job sick, it endangers the health of their co-workers,
customers and the general public.
“Well, you don’t feel priority, I guess. You just feel like a normal worker, when you don’t have bene-
fits. You’re not special, I guess. You have nothing to look forward to, because some people get a pension
plan, but you have nothing to look forward to. So, I guess it does affect me a little bit.” – Male, 6 years
in the industry, Server
“Throughout all my restaurants and catering, no benefits. No vacation, no sick time. That’s what the
restaurant business is, though, right? Because a server, a bartender, you just know off the bat [you’re
not getting any benefits].” – Male, 5 years in the industry, Host
“It affects me because every time we go to the doctor or whatever we have to pay for everything medi-
cine, the appointment every time.” – Male, 14 years in the industry, Bartender
Twenty-eight percent (28%) of workers surveyed with health care pay for a private health insurance plan out of pock-
et. Additional information on the impact of the industry’s lack of benefits on workers, taxpayers, and the public can
be found in “Public Cost” section of Chapter VI: The Social Cost of Low-Wage Jobs.
D. Dead end jobs
Ideally, restaurant workers would be able to advance from lower-paying positions in the industry (often in the back
of the house, or in lower-level front-of-house positions) to higher-paying positions in the industry (most often server
and bartender positions in the front of the house) over time based on their experience and ability, and would have
the opportunity to move up in one restaurant setting, in which internal promotions are possible and encouraged.
Unfortunately, restaurant workers have few opportunities to move up in the industry (see Table 8). Regardless of oc-
cupation, restaurant type, or length of service at a restaurant, workers reported that opportunities to increase their
earnings through seniority or by working their way up the industry ladder are few and far between. Eighty percent
(79.5%) of survey respondents reported that they do not receive regular raises, and 74.5% of workers responded that
they had not been promoted since starting at their current place of employment. These trends held whether a worker
remained in the same place of employment or sought other opportunities – 71.4% of workers surveyed said they had
not moved up from their last job when they took their current one. Moreover, 61.8% of workers surveyed reported
that they do not receive on-the-job training needed to be promoted.
Table 8: Raises and Promotions Reported by Restaurant Workers
Do not receive regular raises 79.5%
Have never been promoted in current job 74.5%
Did not move up in position from last job to the current job 71.4%
Did not receive on-going job training needed to be promoted from employer 61.8%
“I haven’t received a promotion – I have requested – well, first when I applied I mentioned that I
wanted to work bar eventually, or be trained on the bar because I do think that the best way to move
into bartending is to have experience in a restaurant, and then have experience working an actual bar.
So it was something I made clear when I applied and when I was hired, and regularly when we’ve
had openings I’ve indicated my interest to my managers – maybe I haven’t exactly requested the pro-
motion, but I’ve been told I will never get it pretty clearly. It’s not going to happen.” – Female, 2 years
in the industry, Server

Chapter III
17
The majority of restaurant workers are essentially trapped in low-wage jobs with long hours, few benefits, and few ad-
vancement opportunities. A discussion of a lack of movement between front and back of the house workers emerged
as a reoccurring theme in the interviews. A dishwasher who has been in the industry for 8 years explains that he
recently received a promotion to food prep, even though he “wants to be a server.” After three years in the industry,
a cook who works in a fine-dining establishment reported: “I asked for a promotion to bartending but I didn’t get it
because they think that women are better for it.” Several employers explained that when they hire for the kitchen,
there is not much room to “advance in position;” as when they hire for a dishwasher, for example, they are looking
for a person to do that job and to continue occupying that position. Most of the workers we spoke with working in
the industry for three years or more, reported having no choice but to leave an employer in search of better jobs at
other restaurants. Not only does the constant search for a better job deny workers job stability and economic security
for themselves and their families, but it also ends up costing employers in turnover-related costs.29
These two factors
lead to a no-win scenario, and greatly threaten what could be a shared economic prosperity, as discussed in greater
detail in Chapter III: Employers’ Perspectives.
“Well, I think any time I’ve tried to advance anywhere, I don’t think that was the reason. It was more
like they denied me because they didn’t think I was right for it for whatever reason. But I’ve also nev-
er, I figured I got paid more as a barista than a dishwasher and a busser, so [I look for those positions].”
– Female, 3 years in the industry, Cashier
E. Employment and Labor Violations
As mentioned in Section B above, restaurant employers in the State of Illinois are permitted to pay wages of $4.65 per hour to
tipped workers. If tips do not bring the worker up to minimum wage, employers are responsible for making up the difference.
Furthermore, it is unlawful for employers to take tips from restaurant workers. The employer, for each pay period in which tips
are reported, must keep a written tip statement signed by the employee and dated before each paycheck is received on file.30
In
paying workers $4.65, or 60% of the state’s minimum wage, employers rely on tips from customers to pay the difference between
workers’ tipped hourly rate of $4.65 and the legal minimum in the state. However, if tips do not bring the worker up to minimum
wage, employers are responsible for making up the difference. While “tip-pooling” and “tipping-out” is a common practice
in most restaurants, it is unlawful for employers to take tips from restaurant workers. Interestingly, 88.7% of restaurant workers
surveyed were not aware of the correct minimum hourly wage for tipped workers and 68.5% did not know that $7.75 was the state
minimum hourly wage at the time the survey was conducted. Illinois has a state minimum wage that is higher than the federal
minimum wage for both tipped workers ($2.13) and non-tipped workers ($7.25). The state hourly minimum wage increased from
$7.75 to $8.00 in Illinois on July 1, 2009. Illinois will experience another minimum wage increase to $8.25 an hour on July 1, 2010
as mandated by Public Act 094-1072, an amendment to the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.31
Clearly, more public education, for
workers and employers alike, is needed with respect to governing laws in the restaurant industry.
“I recently took a job there for this thing, temporary, another kind of awful experience. But now, I be-
lieve because it’s such a horrible corporate place – it was just a really bad experience. They don’t have
a percentage for what you tip out to your bussers, they leave that to your discretion because the tipping
from their clientele is so horrible.” – Male, 4 years in the industry, Server
Table 9: Employment Law Violations Reported by Restaurant Workers
Employment Law Violations Reported by Restaurant Workers Percent of Workers
Experienced overtime wage violations 32.6%
Worked off the clock without pay 28.5%
Management took share of tips 14.7%
Experienced minimum wage violations 4.6%
As illustrated by Table 9, many workers reported being paid less than minimum wage and receiving no overtime
pay when they worked more than 40 hours per week, in violation of both federal and state wage and hour laws.
Thirty-three percent (32.6%) of all workers surveyed told us they were not paid overtime for hours worked beyond

Chapter III
18
the standard 40-hour workweek. While fine-dining workers reported a higher proportion of management stealing
tips (12.5%) and minimum wage violations (18.5%) than the general survey population, employment violations oc-
curred in every segment of the industry.
“There’s always a tip. So we do events and at the end of the event there’s a big tip. But always with
the tips it’s always corrupt because the function director, he’s the manager who receives the big tip and
he’s supposed to divide it evenly with all the servers, the cooks, the chefs and himself. So at the end of
the night he’s supposed to give everyone an even amount. But there’s always times when you think he
doesn’t, when someone gets more than you, or when you get a very less amount, knowing that it’s more,
and you just know that he got the rest of the money. And right there, there’s no sense of word, or how
do I say it, or paperwork. He has all the power and nobody can tell him what to do or what not to do.
There’s always problems at the end with the tip.” – Male, 4 years in the industry, Server
Some workers we interviewed reported being paid a flat rate no matter how many hours they worked, a practice com-
monly referred to as “shift pay.” However, the Fair Labor and Standards Act mandates that if workers are scheduled
for a shorter shift and they end up working more than eight hours or more than 40 hours per week, employers must
pay overtime.32
Furthermore, 100% of the workers interviewed who worked in the front of the house positions re-
ported that their hourly wage depended on the type of shift they worked. For example, a server who has been in the
industry for 12 years, explained “I usually worked eight to ten hour shifts, sometimes much shorter depending on
how busy it is. The restaurant where I work usually has fewer servers and really big sections so I usually have a section
of maybe 12 tables or more. And we’re usually busy at 6pm, weekends we get a rush at like midnight, [that’s when I
get the most tips].” When a particular shift is less busy, all servers reported being “cut” because they were not mak-
ing any tips. Juan, a server who has been in the industry for 3 years reported: “I’d come in for four hours and make
less than $30 on a slow shift. That’s all I would make.”
Several workers also told us they were paid a fixed rate on a bi-weekly basis, regardless how many hours they worked,
and as a result, their average earnings were always less than minimum wage. These experiences illustrate the im-
portance of qualitative studies in industries such as the restaurant industry, which are not closely regulated and rely
heavily on informal employment arrangements, as many workplace practices are not reported to government agen-
cies or industry associations.
“The workers pretty much get their money from the tips. The restaurant doesn’t pay anything to them
not even the minimum wage. They make their own money but everything is made out of tips they get
nothing from the house. I have a friend who works there he is from Cuba he was telling me the slow
days run from $120 to $150 a day and the busy days $300 a day. Which is good but the house does not
put money in their pockets. I think is good money but bad because they do not get paid by the house they
should get at least the minimum wage.” – Male, 10 years in the industry, Cashier
Five percent (4.6%) of workers reported being paid less than minimum wage, in violation of the law. In the State of
Illinois, employers may pay as little as $4.65 an hour to tipped employees, as long as they receive enough in tips to
make up the difference between the tipped wage and the state minimum wage. If tips are insufficient to bring work-
ers up to the state minimum wage of $7.75 an hour (at the time the survey was conducted), however, employers are
obliged to make up the difference.33
Nevertheless, of the workers we interviewed, several reported being paid no
hourly wage at all and subsisting on tips alone, often averaging out to an hourly rate far below the legal minimum.
“I usually worked 8 hours straight. I needed those tips. I was almost on a tight schedule. I was work-
ing from 8:45 am until 5:00 pm without a break. You know that that is illegal but there is always this
mentality that you go to your job get it done then go home and rest. It is an unwritten mentality.” –
Male, 8 years in the industry, Busser
“Where I work now, they don’t pay holidays, overtime, or when it’s slow. I rely on tips.” – Male, 15
years in the industry, Busser

Chapter III
19
More than a quarter (28.5%) of the workers we surveyed reported working “off the clock” without pay. Other work-
ers reported having to end their shift early and still work, oftentimes receiving no pay. When asked why they had to
end their shift early and still work, these workers explained they were too close to earning overtime, yet continued
to work because they needed the opportunity to earn tips. Finally, 14.7% of tipped workers reported that manage-
ment was unlawfully taking a share of their daily tips – a severe burden to workers who are already being paid very
low wages.
“I am very passionate about the way [we] are treated, unfortunately I’ve gotten a reputation for stand-
ing up for what I believe, about how managers been treating their employees, especially the manager
taking hosts’ tips. Those issues are not addressed by management and won’t be addressed by manage-
ment.” – Female, 5 years in the industry, Server
F. Health and Safety Violations
“By now this day is just all about money and as long as they make their bucks you know, ‘cause I heard
a lot of people I have a lot of friends who work down town and they get no training they treat you like
you were blind, just throw you ‘go’ play, you know without you knowing anything. You have to pick up
on your own if you do something you were not suppose is a mistake, but now the supervisor sees you…
because they did not train you so, is their fault. I have a friend this is weird thing, he just came from
school it was summer and he said he went to the kitchen and the supervisor told him okay I want you
to cut this lime for me and when he was cutting it he cut his finger. They told him ‘you have to go you
are out of here’ and they fired him. They said it was his fault because he should have told them that he
never used a knife before.” – Male, 10 years in the industry, Busser
Our survey data also revealed that restaurant workplaces commonly do not employ or enforce regulations designed to
ensure the health and safety of workers, in violation of the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA).34
Table 10: Health and Safety Violations Reported by Restaurant Workers
Unsafely hot in the kitchen 25.7%
Fire hazards in the restaurant 18.1%
Missing mats on the floor to prevent slipping 19.7%
Missing guards on cutting machines 26.8%
Done something that put own safety at risk 33.6%
Did not receive instruction or training about workplace safety 32.3%
As shown in Table 10, twenty-six (25.7%) percent of workers surveyed reported that it gets unsafely hot in the kitchen
where they work. Significant numbers of workers reported fire hazards such as blocked doors or non-functioning fire
extinguishers in the restaurant where they worked (18.1%), as well as absence of guards on the cutting machines (26.8%)
and mats on the floor to prevent slippage (19.7%). Thirty-four (33.6%) percent reported having done something at work
that put their own safety at risk. Despite the prevalence of health and safety hazards in restaurant workplaces, nearly a
third of the workers (32.3%) told us they did not receive health and safety training from their employers.
Table 11: Workplace Injuries Reported by Restaurant Workers
Burned while on the job 47.8%
Cut while on the job 53.7%
Slipped and injured while on the job 13.5%
Came into contact with toxic chemicals while on the job 11.3%
Have chronic pain caused or worsened by the job 21.8%

Chapter III
20
Table 11 demonstrates that on-the-job injuries are pervasive in Chicago restaurants. 47.8% of all workers surveyed –
or 271 workers out of the 568 workers eligible to answer the question - had been burned on the job. Fifty-four per-
cent (53.7%) of workers surveyed had suffered work-related cuts on at least one occasion, and 11.3% had come into
contact with toxic chemicals. Fourteen percent (13.5%) reported that they had slipped and injured themselves while
at work. Additionally, 21.8% reported chronic pain that was caused or worsened by their job.
“So, I cut my finger at work last year. I cut my tendons in my finger. I was bartending, actually. I thought I was going to recover
after three days, but I noticed that my finger wasn’t going up or down. So I went to go see the doctor, and he told me you hurt
your tendon at work. So he told me my work would give me worker’s comp. And it actually worked pretty good about that. I was
lucky to have insurance from my school and they paid for the whole surgery and everything. It was over three or four grand. If I
hadn’t been in school, I would probably have a deformed finger” – Male, 6 years in the industry, Server
Table 12: Workplace Practices Reported by Restaurant Workers
Worked when the restaurant was understaffed 81.1%
Performed several jobs at once 88.0%
Experienced verbal abuse from supervisors 30.9%
Performed a job not trained for 52.1%
Done something due to time pressure that has put own health and safety at risk 33.6%
Done something due to time pressure that might have harmed the health and safety of customers 23.9%
Finally, Table 12 reveals that understaffing, which places inordinate pressure on workers, is a common industry prac-
tice. Eighty-one percent (81.1%) of respondents reported working when their restaurant was understaffed and 88%
reported they have performed several jobs at once. Half (52.1%) responded that they have been required to perform
jobs for which they had not been trained, and 33.6% of workers reported doing something under time pressure that
put their own safety at risk (i.e., grabbing overly hot plates/pans in order to not keep the customer waiting). And, as
previously discussed, nearly three fourths of the workers we surveyed reported working while sick (75.9%). Such low
road workplace practices not only affect workers, but can also have serious consequences for consumers. Fourteen
percent of workers reported having done something that might have put the health and safety of the customer at risk
as a result of time pressure. In fact, as further discussed in Chapter VI: The Social Cost of Low-Wage Jobs, survey
data indicated a correlation between health and safety violations and impact on consumers.
The federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) imposes standards for health and safety in the workplace, requiring
employers to provide protection for workers in hazardous environments and to keep records of all workplace injuries and
accidents. OSHA covers toxic chemical use – the statute requires gloves, for example, for dishwashers and kitchen cleaners
who use very heavy toxic chemicals – and temperature of work environments, including excessively hot kitchens. While there
is no mandatory requirement that employees be provided with specific health and safety training, such training is effectively
necessary to ensure compliance with OSHA and workers’ compensation law.
In addition, employers in the State of Illinois must secure workers’ compensation insurance for every employee. The Illinois
Workers’ Compensation Act is a no-fault law; workers are eligible for benefits even if they contributed to their own injury. A
work related injury may be an isolated incident (falling down) or a reoccurring action that leads to an injury, condition or illness
(daily inhalation of a toxic chemical). Illinois Workers’ Compensation law also stipulates that workers’ related medical expenses
will be fully covered, to employees entitled to workers’ compensation benefits, with no time or monetary limits. Furthermore,
the injured employee has the injured employee has the right to be treated by two doctors and their referrals at the cost
of the employer. Workers are also allotted time off to recover from an injury or illness, and may be eligible to receive fixed
compensation for any permanent disability.35

Chapter III
21
G. Many “bad jobs,” a few “good jobs”
Analysis of our data revealed the existence of not only the low road practices described above, but also of correlations
between workers’ earnings, benefits and workplace conditions. Unfortunately, since many of the jobs in the restau-
rant industry are long-term, these conditions cannot be dismissed. Restaurant workers surveyed reported working
an average length of time in each restaurant at two and a half years. More than a quarter (27.2%) of workers sur-
veyed reported working in one restaurant for three years or more. More than three-fourths (79.6%) of the workers
that reported working in the same restaurant for six or more years were workers of color. While they may not stay
in one particular restaurant for many years, many workers most definitely stay in the industry for their lifetime. The
median hourly wage reported by workers that worked in one restaurant for three or more years was $11.54, compared
to $8.50 for workers who had worked in the same location for only one year or less.
Additionally, there was a high correlation between workers that reported receiving promotions and the length of
time they stayed working in one restaurant. Fifty-three percent (52.9%) of workers who stayed in their restaurant for
six or more years received a promotion, while only 26.4% of workers who worked between one and three years in the
same restaurant received a promotion. When combined with findings from the interviews, these statistics indicate
that many of the workers are quitting their jobs to find others that provide better opportunities and higher wages,
still in the restaurant industry. Thus, contrary to the popular myth that workers are “transient” and use their jobs as
temporary stepping stones on their way to earning more money, the restaurant industry is actually a career choice
for many. A fine dining server who has been in the industry for more than five years explains that low wages and
lack of access to benefits in the industry “sucks because some of us take our jobs seriously. We make the restaurant
our career, but we don’t [enjoy] the benefits of a career.”
Of the 582 workers we surveyed, the vast majority reported working 40-hours per week (53.1%), year-round (91.2%),
for more than one year in one restaurant (71.8%). Clearly, most workers make a career out of the restaurant industry,
and several workers explained that turnover rates are high because they are constantly seeking better jobs.
“Yes they paid overtime, they paid holidays all time and a half. Every paid shift they gave you a paid
lunch and at the end of the year if you don’t use it you can cash it and they give you cash or you can still
use it if you like. I mean it was pretty good I was very happy that I worked with them. I left because I
needed benefits.” – Male, 8 years in the industry, Server
Our research shows that when workers receive poverty wages and experience a lack of promotions and benefits, they
frequently encounter a large number of additional poor workplace practices, creating an industry of many “bad jobs”
and few “good jobs.” Specifically, our data demonstrates that workers in lower wage positions are:
Less likely to receive regular raises, promotions and job training needed to move up in the indus-➜➜
try. Conversely, workers in living wage jobs are more likely than workers earning incomes below
the poverty line, and much more likely than workers earning less than minimum wage, to be pro-
moted within their workplace or when they move from one job to another.
Less likely to receive workplace benefits such as employer provided health insurance, or paid sick➜➜
and vacation days. For example, workers in living wage jobs were more likely than workers mak-
ing less than minimum wage to have health insurance.
More vulnerable to violations of employment laws, more likely to be exposed to unhealthy and➜➜
unsafe workplaces, and more likely to have to work longer hours in order to make a sustainable
living in the industry. For example, more than three quarters (83.3%) of workers earning less than
minimum wage reported overtime pay violations, compared to only one-third of workers in living
wage jobs (33.3%).
Less likely to receive training, such as health and safety training, to perform job duties. Workers➜➜
earning less than the poverty level are particularly likely to be required to perform jobs without
receiving the necessary training.

Chapter III
22
TABLE 13: Conditions Reported by Restaurant Workers, by Wage Group
Conditions Reported by Restaurant Workers,
by Wage Group
Less than Minimum
Wage
Under Poverty
Line
Low Wage
Living
Wage
Do not get regular raises 95.2% 85.3% 73.3% 89.7%
Do not receive paid vacation days 100.0% 88.4% 86.4% 85.6%
Do not receive paid sick days 100.0% 93.8% 95.9% 98.3%
Do not have health insurance 80.8% 57.6% 49.4% 54.8%
Have not been promoted in current place of
employment
84.6% 91.6% 68.6% 78.5%
Have not moved up in position from last
place of employment to current
80.8% 77.2% 69.4% 72.9%
Experienced overtime violations 83.3% 55.6% 24.9% 33.3%
Worked off the clock without being paid
hourly wage
20.0% 35.8% 28.7% 24.1%
Did not receive health and safety instruction
or training from employer
34.6% 40.0% 31.2% 29.8%
Kam, Hong Kong, delivery
I came here 5 years ago from Hong Kong and I have worked in the restaurant industry for a year. When
I first started in the industry I was excited because I had several different positions as a server. I later
saw that there was no reason to be excited I always got paid below minimum wage, at one place I was
paid $10 a day plus tips for working 9-10 hour shifts, I have always been paid between $0-$2.50/hr as
a server. I decided that this wage was too low and I switched to delivery driver, as a delivery driver I
was not paid an hourly wage and only received the delivery charge and whatever tips came from that
delivery, I was required to provide my own car and pay for my own gas. When I switched my position
I was forced to sign a paper to state that I was not an employee of that restaurant, when I got burned
from chemicals on the job and my nail split open I could not ask to get gloves for protection because I
had signed that paper, I was forced to bring my own from home.
As a delivery driver with no hourly wage I was also forced to do side jobs, I washed the dishes, cooked,
and bussed tables, with this extra responsibility I worked over forty hours and only occasionally received $30 a day. I also did
not receive a break, workers were not allowed to eat in the restaurant, only occasionally when it was really slow, but since I was
delivery I was able to sneak a lunch, I would deliver the food quickly then I would park my car and eat the lunch I had brought
myself.
The schedule I work changes week to week, sometimes I work three days sometimes four, this makes it impossible for me to
plan my life and schedule for anything other than work, the restaurant wants a career commitment without providing me the
career benefits. I do not have health insurance, I do not have sick days the boss is always unhappy when people call in sick, and
they always tell us things like if you don’t come in today don’t ever come back. “If you don’t like working here there is the door,”
is something we hear daily.
All of the workers at the restaurants I have worked in were Asian immigrants and they treated us all unfair, they took advantage
of our need to work. I like working in restaurant industry I just want to be treated with respect and I want this job to have career
benefits because it’s my career.

C H A P T E R IV
Employers’ Perspectives

Chapter IV
24
C H A P T E R IV
Employers’ Perspectives
Our interviews with employers in Chicago’s restaurant industry proved to be a rich source of information regarding
the constraints under which they operate, thus leading them to engage in the practices described by workers in Chap-
ter III: Workers’ Perspectives - often despite their best intentions and their expressed belief that restaurant workers
are critical to their success. Our interviews with employers highlighted the principles and approaches adopted by
employers pursuing the high road – those who manage to maintain successful businesses while ensuring that their
workers earn a living wage and are guaranteed workplace benefits and safe work environments. As such, the perspec-
tives summarized in this chapter can serve to guide further study of the industry, and, perhaps most importantly, lay
the groundwork for initiatives developed in partnership by restaurant workers and employers.
Our interviews with employers revealed that:
Market volatility brought about by factors beyond employers’ control such as green trends in the➜➜
industry, economic downturns, and changing tastes require significant flexibility on the part of
restaurant employers.
Worker productivity and low employee turnover are both important to profitability. Workplace➜➜
practices intended to increase productivity, such as understaffing and longer, more unpredictable
hours, can have the effect of increasing employee turnover, creating a dilemma that many employ-
ers face.
The majority (58%) of Chicagoland restaurant employers interviewed elect to take the low road➜➜
to profitability, offering low wages, even while stating preferences for some high road strategies.
While employers recognized workers’ dependence on wages and overtime to earn enough to meet
basic needs, they also reported a policy of keeping wages low and overtime pay to a minimum.
Many employers stated that they would like to offer their workers health insurance, but maintain➜➜
that it is almost impossible to do so due to prohibitive costs.
It is possible to achieve profitability by taking the low road and paying living wages, providing➜➜
benefits, and maintaining a safe working environment when there is a non-negotiable commit-
ment to doing so. Fourteen (45%) of the 31 employers interviewed reported that they were able
to invest in workers by offering higher wages, training, and advancement opportunities, and still
earn a profit. Employers taking the low road, however, undermine restaurants following the high
road approach.

Chapter IV
25
A. Introduction and Methodology
In order to obtain a better understanding of factors that drive workplace practices, the Chicagoland Restaurant
Industry Coalitioninterviewed restaurant employers in Chicago. With the assistance of students and faculty from
De Paul University and other Coalition partners, we conducted in-depth interviews with 31 restaurant employers,
including owners and managers, from September 2008 to May 2009. Employers were selected for interviews in a
manner designed to gather data reflective of the distribution of the different segments - fine dining, casual/family
style, fast food/quick serve – and sizes of Chicago restaurants. Interviews included questions regarding trends in the
industry over time, factors affecting business practices, strategies for running a profitable business, workplace prac-
tices, and the role of the informal economy in Chicago’s restaurant industry.
Overwhelmingly, 100% of the restaurant employers we interviewed recognized the important role that workers play
in the vitality of the industry and the success of their businesses. The vast majority of employers described their work-
place policies as supportive of workers and their development. However, when in-depth analyses of qualitative data
from employers and worker responses to our surveys are juxtaposed, a more complex picture emerges.
Both worker surveys and employer interviews confirm that some employers are paying living wages, providing com-
prehensive benefits, and ensuring healthy work conditions while successfully running a profitable business. Indeed,
22.3% of workers we spoke with reported being paid a living wage by their employers, and a similar share reported
receiving workplace benefits.
These employers, however, are the exception, rather than the rule. Employers also recognized that the low road to
profitability - paying low wages, engaging in wage and hour violations, and cutting corners on health and safety,
- is the path more often followed in the Chicago restaurant industry. While there are surely some “bad” employ-
ers who operate only for their own profit, at the expense of their workers, what appears to be more common is that
employers espouse supportive workplace policies in theory, but do not implement them in practice. This disconnect
can be largely attributed to lack of good management, absence of industry incentives rewarding good employment
practices in the industry, and ineffective employment law enforcement mechanisms. Additionally, employers would
clearly benefit from better guidance from the industry as a whole, including more education regarding their legal
obligations, and enforcement of these laws. Although the workers are the ones who lose out in the short term as a
result of low road workplace practices, interviews with employers suggest that the industry as a whole loses out in
the long run.
B. External Factors Affecting Workplace Practices
In order to better understand the tensions and contradictions in the restaurant industry affecting employers and
workers alike, it is important to consider some of the most salient external pressures on restaurant businesses in the
local context. Employers we interviewed referred to two central factors that impact their business, workplace, and
employment practices - the economy and “the greening” of consumer demand.

Chapter IV
26
TABLE 14: Chicagoland Interview Survey Sample by Attributes
Industry Segment Number of Employers (%)
Fine-Dining 11 (35%)
Family Style/Casual Dining 15 (48%)
Quick Service 5 (16%)
Total 31 (100%)
Position
Owner 7 (23%)
Manager/General Manager 24 (77%)
Total 31 (100%)
Gender
Male 18 (58%)
Female 13 (42%)
Total 31 (100%)
Length of time in industry
Less than 1 year 5 (16%)
1 – 3 years 1 (3%)
3 – 6 years 7 (23%)
6 – 10 years 6 (19%)
More than 10 years 12 (39%)
Total 31 (100%)
Source: Chicagoland Restaurant Industry Coalition interview data
“With the economy the way it is obviously people are looking for value. I think that when you survey
different products you know almost in any prices a good product is good for you its healthy is prepared
and taste great. And you offer good service at any price that is valued. And now we’re suffering a little
bit. And its a constant battle . I mean its a constant battle even when the economy is good. Got to stay
new and fresh and remind people that you’re there. And to you know constantly to be touching up the
holes in the wall always try and look new and fresh and always have the right product.” – Owner, 25
years in the industry, Fine Dining
The Chicago restaurant industry continues to be one characterized by robust growth, as shown in Figure 3. The
number of restaurants in Cook County increased by 18.4%, from 8,009 establishments to 9,485 establishments be-
tween 2001 and 2008.36

Chapter IV
27
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
20082007200620052004200320022001
Numberofestablishments
Figure 3: Growth in Food Services and Drinking Places
in Cook County, 2001-2008
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages.
While almost all employers interviewed discussed the economic crisis as affecting the industry, they also said their
own business was not substantially affected. In fact, despite the general perception that other restaurants were suf-
fering, and statements that other restaurants have had to reduce prices and downgrade to meet consumer demand,
most employers noted that they were not having to do so themselves, and that they were surviving the economic
crisis by adapting to consumer demand for greater value.
These seemingly contradictory observations reflect national trends. While the industry is generally perceived to be
declining, the restaurant industry lost only one-quarter of the jobs that the rest of the economy lost from March
2008 to December 2008.37
And, while most other sectors continue to decline or lag, the restaurant industry has al-
ready begun to post growth as of July 2009.38
Certain segments of the industry, such as fast food and liquor sales,
have been growing throughout the crisis.39
“My intuition is that restaurants are ever more popular. If that’s what you mean, what’s the sense of
the audience’s relationship to restaurants? I think demand is up, it seems to me, I don’t keep count of
course but it feels to me that there’s more and more restaurants opening all the time, and that suggests
that there’s a kind of enthusiasm behind that. They’re sensing that, that if they open, if you build it they
will come. .. My sense is that as more restaurants have moved in our business has just gotten better.” –
Owner, 11 years in the industry, Fine Dining
“Business has been pretty similar over the past – well as long as I have been working here about ten
years things have been pretty similar. I would say not much has changed over the past ten years. Just
recently, the past year or so the economy has been a problem but nothing much over the past ten years.”
– Owner, Over 10 years in the industry, Family Style
Employers repeatedly emphasized the increase in liquor sales, which has helped them stay profitable during slow
economic times. Historically, even during a recession, bars and restaurants that serve alcohol remain popular and
experience increases in profit.40
Several employers reported revamping the menu by reducing portion sizes, lower-
ing prices of food items, and including more drinks as that is where they derive most of their revenues. Economists
report that alcohol is a counter-cyclical asset, a good that defies economic trends.41
“And the other thing is, and it’s not even a matter of the money sometimes, the climate right now is
also warranting going green. And what is going green? You’re more conscious of food additives, preser-
vatives, things like those. When you’re in a fine dining establishment there’s not a lot of room for plas-

Chapter IV
28
tic food. What you’re serving is real, is fresh. You’re not going to get a fish, if your fish isn’t fresh, then
you’re not going to be able to serve it to your customers. So if you go to McDonald’s, or if you go to a
place that’s offering you frozen fish, let’s say you come here and you’re getting a fresh fish. You might be
paying a little bit more money, but you know what you’re ingesting is quality. There’s no chemicals in
it. So I think that makes a difference in families. Because I see a lot of families coming into fine dining
establishments right now. It’s quality of food versus the fast chemical intake.” – General Manager, 6
GREEN TRENDS IN THE INDUSTRY
Several employers spoke of the need to “go green” in order to stay competitive in the industry. Industry research
points to the increase in consumer demand for healthier alternatives and economically efficient restaurants.42
In
Chicago, there are a few certified green restaurants and the trend seems to increase as more diners become aware of
what they consume, how it is packaged, and food’s impact on the environment.43
The U.S. food system alone uses as
much energy as France’s total annual energy consumption, and with “food miles” requiring an estimated 1,500 miles
before being consumed, many employers spoke to how diners understood the unsustainability of these practices and
were looking for “greener” options.44
“I think now people are more concerned about what they eat. You know, we have been inundated with
how we see and what we see and it is overwhelming for a lot of people. I think our guests now rely on
us to [offer the healthiest options and explain it to them]. So from our stand point we have to do their
homework for them [by offering quality foods and then explaining it to them]. And [with my front of
the house workers], they obviously have to be trained, and skilled, and educated enough to discuss those
items with the table. [Guests] expect that from you. They want more information at the table, in bite
sizes - pieces of information that they can process quickly in order to make a decision.” – Manager, 30
Unfortunately, “green” restaurant employers do not always necessarily take the “high road” with regard to employ-
ment practices. While it is essential that the restaurant industry strives to lessen the environmental impact caused by
food consumption, it is also essential that employers and consumers alike recognize the equal importance of treating
workers with dignity and respect.
C. Strategies for Profit
To deal with many of the external pressures outlined above, employers generally agree that one of the most impor-
tant elements of maintaining a profit is human capital. In fact, most employers in our sample agreed that reducing
employee turnover and increasing employee productivity were both critical to maintaining profitability.
MINIMIZING TURNOVER
“I think that owners who underpay their staff are going to suffer the consequences. So I think it under-
cuts their business in the long run. It’s basically like a personal relationship, it pays to be accommodat-
ing and to be interested in the welfare of the other person because it’s going to make your welfare better,
it’s as simple as that. I think employee turnover has a direct relationship to profitability in the sense that
if they’re not happy with what they’re making and you’re paying everything that the business can pay
them; they’re going to leave at some point. – Owner, 10 years in the industry, Fine Dining
Establishment of a loyal customer base and personable service was cited by employers as critical to promoting busi-
nesses and ensuring consistency in profit. Consistency and quality of staffing is of great importance to the employers
we spoke with, who told us that keeping staff turnover low was critical to the success of their business. Most employ-
ers agreed that turnover is expensive and destabilizing to a restaurant workplace:

Chapter IV
29
“[Turnover] can cost a lot because it is tough to constantly have to train a new person. And if there is one
chink in the armor it can have an effect on the whole process. And if we have to get a new dishwasher
every month, then that would mean that we would have to find a new dishwasher and it would screw
us up in not getting the food out fast enough and then the service isn’t as good.” – Owner, 27 years in
the industry, Family Style
“How do you keep your turnover rate low then? I guess just make sure that you treat your employees
well and have a good work environment.” – Owner, 4 months in the industry, Quick Serve
Employee turnover rates in the restaurant industry often exceed 90% per year. Such high levels of turnover impose both
direct and indirect costs on businesses. Direct costs include the time and money required to find, hire, and train replacement
workers. Indirect costs include declines in productivity and quality of service causes by understaffing during the time it takes
to find replacement workers, and by the inexperience of new workers. Previous research suggests that dissatisfaction with
compensation is a major cause of restaurant employee turnover.45
Employers recognized the importance of keeping employees happy in order to decrease employee turnover, thereby
fostering a satisfied and loyal customer base. Some of the strategies mentioned by employers as important to promot-
ing good conditions for workers included training, promoting from within, paying sustainable wages and providing
other “perks” ranging from workplace benefits to staff outings. In addition, many employers cited the overall impor-
tance of creating a good work environment and a sense of family.
I think in fine dining you see a lot of places that do well, perhaps you see servers and cooks are happy
because they are busy and they are being paid well, because business is making money. So, a successful
business is going to keep employees a little longer, because [employers] recognize that they are doing well
and they want to keep their employees happy, because employees are the part of the reason that they are
doing so well. I’d think as you go down the food chain from price points down, you would see more
turnovers. Our restaurant is kind of in between, we are kind of casual- fine dining. It is not necessary
for fine dining, because our prices are higher, because we are doing higher level food than most of restau-
rants on the street. So we don’t have high turnover at all. We know that we recognize our employees,
this is the part of the reason we are doing well. We are trying to keep everybody happy, Yeah, I think,
if you would go down on the food chain those fast food restaurant have higher turnovers, because em-
ployees are less gratified.” – Manager, 10 years in the industry, Fine Dining
WORKER PRODUCTIVITY
Employers reported that worker productivity is critical to running an effective and profitable business. There are dif-
fering theories regarding how to best maximize productivity. Some employers believe that training and investing in
workers is best. On the other hand, some think that hiring fewer workers to perform several tasks is the most effi-
cient way to move production. Fourteen (45%) of the 31 Chicago employers interviewed, however, echoed the belief
that investing in workers – in terms of wages, working conditions, training, advancement opportunities, and more
– is the most effective way to keep workers happy and productive.
D. Contradictions in Theory and Practice
“Litigation is a big issue for the restaurant industry. It’s one that the National Restaurant Association
has worked on for years and always will.” – John Gay, senior vice president of government affairs
and public policy for the National Restaurant Association.46

Behind the kitchen door: the hidden costs of taking the low road in chicagoland's thriving restaurant industry

Behind the kitchen door: the hidden costs of taking the low road in chicagoland's thriving restaurant industry

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Behind the kitchen door: the hidden costs of taking the low road in chicagoland's thriving restaurant industry

Similar to Behind the kitchen door: the hidden costs of taking the low road in chicagoland's thriving restaurant industry (20)

More from CookCountyPLACEMATTERS

More from CookCountyPLACEMATTERS (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Behind the kitchen door: the hidden costs of taking the low road in chicagoland's thriving restaurant industry