|
So I sit on the advisory board for our local co-op. It's an awesome job, and the hours more than cover the time requirements for my membership discount :D The problem is with the little soup-specialty café: a few years back, the membership approved hiring a new head chef (the last one was terrible, cost us a ton of money on BS projects, and really only got the job because of his father's connections on the selection committee). The new guy gave a great interview; he knew a lot of great recipes that he could recite verbatim, he was enthusiastic about the job, and the community loved him. Not only did we hire him, but, since there were a lot of openings for the line cooks and other staff as well, we brought in what we thought was a team that would be supportive of him, and work with him to get the job done.
Now, a few years later, it's becoming a problem. The new guy really did know all the recipes by heart, but we discovered that he was more than willing to change them to suit his needs. Corners were cut, ingredients that we featured were often left out of dishes, etc. The members of the staff mostly supported him (especially the one shift leader who'd come here from California; she was awesome and very efficient), but there was a small group, holdovers from the last chef, who really didn't like having to work for a new guy. These few kept holding up the line, and the head chef (and the other shift leader as well) never made an effort to reign them in, or even to work around them.
Time went on, and staff cycled out (as they do in the restaurant business); we got a few more people in, and to call them "experimental chefs" is an insult to both chefs and experiments. They threw whatever wacky stuff they wanted into the soup pots: unwashed potato skins, carrot peelings, maple tree bark; all sorts of inedible crap. It got so bad, that the group of holdovers giving the head chef problems only got worse, apparently encouraged by the new hires. The nice lady from California was replaced by some Midwest moron as Shift Leader, but thankfully still works in the kitchen.
And the topper is that our head chef relents to the new chefs, letting them put said wacky ingredients into the pot, as long as he gets to put some in as well. On the rare occasion that actually happens, the new chefs bitch and moan, and refuse to serve the soup, and the head chef just shrugs it off.
Of course, our community members are getting pissed. They're either getting soup that could potentially kill them, or they're not getting soup at all. We're stuck with the crew members because they're either popular in their small neighbourhoods, meaning their loyal members won't vote to fire them (no matter how much they hate the restaurant as a whole); or they're well connected to the oversight committee; or, if they're fired from the restaurant, will simply shift over to a higher-paying job in the same co-op, working alongside the restaurant and continuing to influence the line staff.
Given the rules of the co-op, if we get rid of the head chef, one of the bad line staff will take over as head chef (and they're all terrible options). That's out. We could renew the head chefs membership contract, and hope things get better in the kitchen. But what I want to do is introduce him to a few other chefs that I'm hoping will apply for the position come renewal time. These other chefs have worked the line before, but now I'm looking at their product, not their recipe knowledge. Chefs whose food is proven delicious, and who can stand up to the line crew (there's one guy from Vermont I'm looking at, but he's technically not a co-op member, he just works the line to support the co-op workers).
I think that this way, it'll send a message to our head chef that we're not happy with his performance, and that part of his job requirements aren't just to know a bunch of recipes, but to keep his staff in line, and to make sure that the product he puts out is a healthy, sustainable, high-quality meal for our members.
Thoughts?
Oswego "mmmm... soup" Atheist
|