4 ms·

Hmm, on the other hand cooks in this study were the number one occupational role for risk of death by covid. I wonder how much of this difficulty hiring for th

by dv_dt 5y ago

Hmm, on the other hand cooks in this study were the number one occupational role for risk of death by covid. I wonder how much of this difficulty hiring for the food industry just from reduction of trained workforce via deaths, hesitance of survivors to return to an occupation where there would be many first or second hand experiences with colleagues passing on. https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2021/02/10/covid-jobs https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2021/02/10/covid-job...

blakesterz 5y ago
That list is really interesting, surprising even... Cooks at #1, then factory work, agriculture, then bakers at #4, construction, procutions, sewing, shipping, grounds, customer service, then again "chefs and head cooks" at #12 and at 13 is "Computer occupations, all other" which surprised me and then second to last, bartenders. So food service is well represented. Where are the waiters/waitress/servers on that list? I'd expect them to be at higher risk than cooks, since they're out there walking around.
- evgen 5y ago
  From what I recall at the time the issue with back of house workers is that if anyone on the line has it then everyone is likely to get it. The kitchen is crowded, it is hot (making PPE seldom used), people are shouting over each other and the noises of cooking, ventilation is pulling from the public in the front of house across the line and then out, and the existing contamination-prevention efforts are all based on touch and not respiration. While front of house people would have been exposed to the general public they were not as confined.
  - tomlagier 5y ago
    To add to this, cooks are often more economically precarious than front of house & so less likely to stay at home if they are sick.
  - jjeaff 5y ago
    I would also postulate that back of the house workers are more likely to be older, lower income and more recent immigrants. So they may have poorer access to healthcare or simply less knowledge or experience in navigating the healthcare system or less likely to seek medical attention at all. Then of course, receiving poorer medical care when they do seek it.
dporter 5y ago
Another thing I never see mentioned in the articles about restaurant staff shortages is how awful working at a restaurant is. The restaurant industry has more sexual harassment claims than any other industry, with 90% of women and 70% of men experiencing some form of sexual harassment [1]. Everyone I know who has worked in restaurants has plenty of stories about how awful the managers and customers are. [1] https://hbr.org/2018/01/sexual-harassment-is-pervasive-in-the-restaurant-industry-heres-what-needs-to-change https://hbr.org/2018/01/sexual-harassment-is-pervasive-in-th...
- wodenokoto 5y ago
  It is mentioned in TFA. Not the sexual harassment, but that working fast food is tough, stressful, low pay and so bad that fulfillment is comparatively a breeze.

by dv_dt 5y ago

blakesterz 5y ago

That list is really interesting, surprising even... Cooks at #1, then factory work, agriculture, then bakers at #4, construction, procutions, sewing, shipping, grounds, customer service, then again "chefs and head cooks" at #12 and at 13 is "Computer occupations, all other" which surprised me and then second to last, bartenders. So food service is well represented. Where are the waiters/waitress/servers on that list? I'd expect them to be at higher risk than cooks, since they're out there walking around.

evgen 5y ago
From what I recall at the time the issue with back of house workers is that if anyone on the line has it then everyone is likely to get it. The kitchen is crowded, it is hot (making PPE seldom used), people are shouting over each other and the noises of cooking, ventilation is pulling from the public in the front of house across the line and then out, and the existing contamination-prevention efforts are all based on touch and not respiration. While front of house people would have been exposed to the general public they were not as confined.
- tomlagier 5y ago
  To add to this, cooks are often more economically precarious than front of house & so less likely to stay at home if they are sick.
- jjeaff 5y ago
  I would also postulate that back of the house workers are more likely to be older, lower income and more recent immigrants. So they may have poorer access to healthcare or simply less knowledge or experience in navigating the healthcare system or less likely to seek medical attention at all. Then of course, receiving poorer medical care when they do seek it.

dporter 5y ago

Another thing I never see mentioned in the articles about restaurant staff shortages is how awful working at a restaurant is. The restaurant industry has more sexual harassment claims than any other industry, with 90% of women and 70% of men experiencing some form of sexual harassment [1]. Everyone I know who has worked in restaurants has plenty of stories about how awful the managers and customers are. [1] https://hbr.org/2018/01/sexual-harassment-is-pervasive-in-the-restaurant-industry-heres-what-needs-to-change https://hbr.org/2018/01/sexual-harassment-is-pervasive-in-th...

wodenokoto 5y ago
It is mentioned in TFA. Not the sexual harassment, but that working fast food is tough, stressful, low pay and so bad that fulfillment is comparatively a breeze.