Are you sure? Because the sarcasm I get from your reply says no. Without having to write an essay to explain why I said what I said, I will leave it in question form. Have you ever seen a fat, ugly, flat chested woman working in Hooters? Why is it ok for them to the same thing (hiring practices) that other employers can't do? Because the titty reference in the name impiles that only beauty lie within?
But he did prove you wrong, see.... His logic is undefeatable. You, good sir, have been vanquished! There is no defence against the "I said it, there for its true *Pppptttthhhhhhhhhppp*" reason.
No, but I have seen some butterfaced, chunky thighed, big chested women at Hooters. Not every Hooters is staffed by Hooters Calander quality girls. Next time look not so much at the titties, but the total package and you'll be suprised how plain some of them look. But some people are just entranced by lolboobies n' cleavage.
I've heard this is true, and that their hiring practices have become more lenient over the years. I have to wonder what the waitstaff at the one nearest me is like.
I'd pay to see that. I still don't see the big deal about hiring hot girls, especially in the service industry. If anything you are discriminating against the Hot girls by assuming that an ugly girl could do the job better. I would also like to see lawsuit agaisnt Playboy for only having hot girls in their magazines.
Wow, this blew up (somewhat) into serious hiring practices discussion. Fun times! My whole take on this is that, as a private business, you have the right to hire who you want just like you have the right to deny services to anyone you want. While it may not gain you points with the public, I don't see why the government or lawyers need to get involved. It's sad when you see a blatent discrimination case but it all comes down to "he said, she said" in the end. If I own a store and don't hire you because you look like a ghetto thug who would rob the place at the first chance and can't even speak proper English, then maybe you should think about cleaning up your appearance so you come off as more trustworthy and intelligent. There's no need to run to the media and get Rev. Al Sharpton involved.
That's not the same thing, at all. Models are paid because they look pretty. Servers are paid to serve customers. An average or ugly looking person probably wouldn't be a great model, but they could still be a great server. Good looking servers are always a bonus, but I think most people consider it secondary. Most people would prefer a mediocre looking, but extremely competent server over a hottie who spills drinks, can't get orders right, and never gets you drink refills. However, I would never assume that a person would be a shitty server just because they are hot. That's why I said it's a possibility that they were all hired because they interviewed well, had experience, had good references, and just happened to all be attractive blondes. I doubt it, but it's a possibility. That's why I wasn't particularly concerned with the legal aspect of it. It's still douchey to me, though, if a manager is hiring this way because of their own preference in looks.
there's this asian restaurant where the servers are half naked. thank god they only hire hot girls. can you imagine eating dim sum and you see a fat chick with hairy legs? there's this restaurant where it hires only blind peeps. o.noir (jeu de mot au noir) their concept is to help the sense of taste and smell by blocking out the sight. you eat in the dark.
I feel the "douchey" but what makes one appearance factor more important than another? You have two equally qualified applicants. One comes to the interview in a suit and the other comes in with his pants hanging halfway to the floor. Both have the same skill set and experience - which one would you hire? More than likely, the suit. Now you have to ask what makes that any different than hiring someone who's tall, thin, and attractive over someone who is short and fat - even if they both have the same experience and qualifications. It all comes down to customer perception. Who would they feel more comfortable with. You have to hire the applicant who is going to give a better appearance, even if it comes off as a shit move.
Sure, when they're both equally qualified, even I would go for the more attractive one. But I would only use that as the tie breaker. If that is what is happening, then I couldn't care less. I just personally don't think that's the actual explanation. And of course, it doesn't really matter, as I'll likely never know. I just wanted to speculate and ponder to avoid being bored.
You're right, I doubt that's what is happenning but these are privately owned companies and they can hire whomever they want. It all comes down to customer satisfaction. Pretty girls are going to attract more customers, even if it means we're all materialistic and shallow to some extent.
I guess as long as I continue to get good customer service, there really isn't anything to complain about... ...but when the day comes that I'm slightly mistreated by one of their attractive servers, there will be so much fist shaking!
I'm glad Hooters only hires hot, good-looking girls. I sure don't wanna be looking at no greasy, fat tub of lard while I'm trying to eat my Deep Fried Pickle Chips.
Well my friend didnt get a big chunk a change from the lottery nor did he inherit it. How else did he get it? Explain that to me. You think bringing lawsuits against a company is ridiculous huh. Try being punished for a crime you didnt commit like what happened to Brian Aitken. He is now suing because of that. My friend doesnt like being taken advantage of. I dont think anyone one does. There is a saying I go by; If you think someone is breaking the law; 9 times out of 10 they probably are. I am 36 years old. I take it you like being pulled over for nothing or being fired or written up for no reason; is that what you are telling me because that is what it sounds like to me. You like being taken advantage of or walked over by people. Ever hear of fighting for your rights. Guess not.