Preventing Restaurant Demise From Political Talk

With today’s contentious political climate, more and more people have steadfast opinions on the key issues and are debating and fighting with friends or co-workers either in the flesh or on the place where things can quickly get out of hand — social media.

People attend restaurants to eat, socialize, and post pictures of their meals. A political debate with their servers is not expected by most patrons as a side order. To prevent employees from getting customers riled up by talking politics, many restaurants set some rules.

To keep their personal political thoughts off their duty is the responsibility of employees, says Licia Gliptis, VP for Restaurant Consultants, Inc., College Park, Maryland.

Nannina Angioni, a labor and employment attorney and partner with the Los Angeles-based firm Kaedian LLP, says it’s always an honest idea to own clear guidelines in situ for workers because when expectations on either side of the link are clear, you see fewer issues.

“Employers have to know their own rules cold. Supervisors and managers should be trained to seek advice from the foundations and have the know-how to hold them enter the workplace,” she says.

Rules that provide an employee with a transparent path to management, with options for handling workplace conflict, are key to a successful work environment. Besides, allowing staff to mention whatever is on their mind may be harmful to the restaurant and its reputation.

Gretchen Van Vlymen, head of HR at StratEx, a personality’s resources software and firm focused on the restaurant industry, says having a code of conduct is important, not most saying people can’t express their personal views but that they have to do so in an exceedingly way that meets this code.

Van Vlymen notes that whether or not someone overhears customers talking about a couple of subjects they’re addicted to, they shouldn’t intrude.

ALSO READ: Your Guide before Opening a Food Truck Business

Incidents Do Happen

In 2011, claiming it had been because she was wearing a bracelet advocating for the party, and customers complained to her boss, though the restaurant claims her dismissal had nothing to do with it, an Outback Steakhouse waitress in Crystal Lake, Illinois was fired. Angioni says that would have led to a messy legal fight if rules weren’t in situ.

And a Rhode Island state legislator who worked as a waitress for traditional Café in Providence, Rhode Island, was fired after owner Raymond Burns warned her that political talk was interfering together with her shift, and he saw a scathing review online due to it, in keeping with a story that appeared within the Associated Press. Having rules written down about such talk protected his decision.

“As a family restaurant, who our customers are and what we expect of them are what we have a conversation with all of our employees about,” Gavin Coleman says.

Over the years, everyone from President Barrack Obama to Speaker of the House Tip O’Neil to a number of the leading Republicans and lobbyists has stopped sure a bite, and Coleman makes sure that every one conversation between staff and patrons are respectful.

“Considering or disagreeing would be alienating us with other groups,” he says. “Catering to just one demographic is what we don’t want to be known for, that is what I tell my staff.”

Coleman recalls an occurrence where someone was drinking at the bar and tried to interact with the bartender to discuss immigration issues.

“I tell my employees to keep replies short. Because political debates often surface when people are drinking,” he says.

READ MORE

The Relationship Between Kidney Care and Political Advocacy

Kidney disease and dialysis have a novel relationship with the U.S. government. The likelihood for those with end-stage renal disease to survive despite having a life-threatening, chronic disease was created with the introduction of dialysis treatments within the middle of the last century. However, within the youth of dialysis, not everyone was ready to get the life-saving treatment.

Death squads, medical ethics, and Medicare coverage

The short supply of dialysis machines and dialysis treatments was very expensive and also limited the number of patients who could get treatments in the 1960s. That is why today, more and more patients are choosing alternatives such as citrate kidney stones with regards to their kidney health problems. Only the very wealthy could afford to obtain a dialysis spot; the remainder of the people with renal failure were presented to a committee of anonymous citizens who were selected by hospital boards or medical societies. The members of the committee were to blame for deciding each patient’s fate.

Basing on health status, psychological ability to handle stress, and financial resources, three different committees determined whether the patient was worthy to receive dialysis. Then, a committee called the “death squad” or “Life or Death Committee” evaluated the patient’s worth within the community. In Seattle, this group was comprised of community representatives including a: banker, surgeon, lawyer, minister, leader, housewife, and government official.

The members of the Life or Death Committee would use criteria like the patient’s: age (15-55 years old), contribution to the community (employed, housewife/mother, husband/father or student), location (near treatment center), and to deem who was deserving of treatment, character references.

Dr. Willem Kolff, who invented the primary medical instrument, stated in an interview, “At one point, there have been death committees to come to a decision who should be left to die and who should receive the dialysis treatment. I strongly argued against this deplorable system. Fewer than 800 Americans were sustained by hemodialysis by the mid-1960s, although there have been over 10,000 qualified patients. When the amount of qualified but untreated patients exceeded 20,000, this problem worsened by the first half of the 1970s.”

An article explaining the committee’s decision-making process appeared in Life Magazine in 1962. It was written by journalist Shana Alexander. Random qualifications supported the committee’s own judgments and the general public was outraged at the committee’s unfair selection process. It had been alarming to the general public that citizens were answerable for “playing God”.

In 1965, the committee rejected a 16-year-old, high school honor student dying of kidney failure whose parent was a fan of an engineering professor, Dr. Albert Babb. Dr. Babb met Dr. Belding Scribner, inventor of vascular dialysis access called the Scribner shunt, when Dr. Scribner speaks at the University of Washington’s School of Engineering. Dr. Babb told Dr. Scribner he wanted to create a machine to save lots of his friend’s daughter. The doctors founded experimental scientific research, as the simplest way around the committee’s rule, and invented a home hemodialysis machine.

The Life or Death Committee was not necessary and was disbanded with the supply of home hemodialysis in 1967. Many scholars consider the role played by the Life or Death Committee to be the start of bioethics (medical ethics).

ALSO READ: How YouTube Can Become A Political Influence

Why political advocacy continues to be necessary for nephrosis

To confirm dialysis patients get the most effective quality care possible, political advocacy is important. Within the time period of dialysis, treatment included only the cleaning of blood and fluid removal. Within the years that followed, advances were made due to an improved understanding of ESRD and its effect on the whole body. New medicines were introduced to assist with specific problems like anemia and bone disease. Better care and more advances still help people on dialysis live longer and better lives. However, while the price of dialysis treatment is rising, Congress doesn’t have an annual adjustment in situ that might take into consideration the rise within the cost of dialysis services, new technology, labor, inflation, or other expenses. For dialysis centers to afford to produce the simplest treatment available, Government funding has to air par with treatment costs.

As the number of individuals needing dialysis increases, the price to the centralized will grow. It’s beneficial for people with uropathy to let their fellow Americans and lawmakers know the importance of dialysis treatment because Medicare is consistently being analyzed for areas to chop. Other diseases like AIDS, cancer, diabetes et al. are competing for the limited dollars of Medicare.

Public opinion and political advocacy have a powerful influence in getting changes made within the American form of government. Changing public policy comes about when groups with a typical cause communicate with their elected officials, donate money, endorse and vote for candidates who are favorable to their cause and develop relationships with representatives to coach them a few causes.

Average citizens sometimes underestimate the ability of their voice when it involves politics. Many feel that professional activists and lobbyists are those with influence; however, when a gaggle of like-minded citizens closes, they will be very persuasive.

Conclusion

At this point, the kidney is that the only organ within the body whose function may be replicated, allowing someone to remain alive when his or her kidneys have failed. The history of the Life or Death Committee and other actions by concerned individuals led to dialysis becoming a treatment that every one of our citizens would be entitled to through Medicare. The selections of our government and society made it possible for those facing nephropathy to possess a second chance at life and, as times change, it’s the responsibility of everyone to confirm this may always be the case.

READ MORE