💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › anonymous-eat-the-rich.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 06:48:25. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Eat the rich
Author: Anonymous
Date: Mar 29 2021
Language: en
Topics: IWA-AIT, COVID-19, work, anarcho-syndicalism, direct action
Source: https://libcom.org/blog/eat-rich-my-experience-hospitality-work-during-pandemic-28032021

Anonymous

Eat the rich

With a provisional date set for the gradual reopening of the hospitality

sector in UK, now seems a prescient moment to reflect upon the

experiences of hospitality staff during the Covid-19 pandemic.

---

While many staff will feel grateful to have a return date set in their

diaries (albeit provisionally), we should reject the much posited idea

of a ‘return to normal’. Accepting such a move lets both government and

employers – many of whom have behaved disgracefully in the last twelve

months – off the hook. While the government’s furlough scheme has

ensured hospitality staff have had a source of income and have jobs to

return to in May, we should not accept the bare minimum as anywhere

close to enough.

For starters, there seems little reason why staff couldn’t have been

paid at 100% of their normal monthly pay, as opposed to the 80% the

scheme currently offers. Given the base rate for hospitality is often

minimum wage (and even less for those under twenty-one or on

apprenticeship wages), arbitrarily cutting 20% of earnings only heaps

financial pressure on those already struggling. While work may have

stopped temporarily, food, clothes and other basic necessities cost no

less, while mortgages and rent to landlords (not known for their

compassion in times of crisis) still need to be paid.

Another pitfall of the furlough scheme, which some of my colleagues

experienced first hand, is its reliance upon the competence and honesty

of employers. Management teams fiddling with staff hours to make meagre

savings is not a new phenomenon, but in the context of furlough – where

staff pay is already reduced – the practice is even more reprehensible.

For example, a staff member with two children will work around child

care, so they may do two 10 shifts and one shorter 5 hour shift a week,

totalling 25 hours. However, there have been instances of employers

under-reporting staff hours, so the person working 25 hours in normal

times is only paid (again at 80%) for 20. Such discrepancies are not

only grossly irresponsible, they hurt workers in an industry already

both low-paid and precarious.

Rumours of a second instalment of the Chancellor’s ‘Eat out to help out’

scheme will also fill those working in the hospitality sector with a

sense of foreboding. While much may have been made of the scheme in

August – the press and government blustered plenty of platitudes about

how it would ‘restart’ the economy – the reality for those working it

was hellish. While the big chains made plenty of lip-service about staff

health and safety being a priority during the pandemic, this sits in

stark contrast to what myself and many colleagues experienced:

management teams cannot claim to value the wellbeing of staff while they

continue to cut corners, solely to maximise profits for unaccountable

CEOs and board members. While the UK’s first lockdown was undoubtedly

lifted too soon, it is not within the remit of this article to offer

analysis of every (of the many) government failures from during the last

12 months.

Hospitality businesses reopened last July under the assurance they would

implement measures to ensure safe social distancing – this included

things like reduced capacity and introducing track and trace forms for

customers. While the nature of work in the industry does make social

distancing nigh on impossible at times (especially for those of us

working in already cramped kitchens), it was telling just how quickly

senior management teams abandoned all pretence of safety once ‘Eat out

to help out’ was launched. Cramming in table upon table of guests would

be negligent behaviour at any juncture, but during a pandemic there is

no justification.

Another trend prevalent throughout the scheme was staff sickness, owing

to overwork and understaffing. While anyone who has ever worked a bar or

restaurant job knows there will be certain periods in a week (often a

Friday and Saturday) where you will be busy, staff being worked at an

unrelenting pace – there were a couple of days were staff were forced to

go without breaks – for a month is not healthy.

Management machinations did not stop at understaffing and overworking

during ‘Eat out to help out’. As the months progressed (and Covid cases

rose), more and more staff had to take time off to self-isolate. While

frustrating, the bosses did at least attempt to maintain a semblance of

transparency at first by keeping staff informed about self isolation.

Such transparency soon vanished however, when the head chef tested

positive for Covid. Despite displaying symptoms (a dry cough and

fatigue), the person in question filled in the daily Covid check (for

which normal staff were routinely badgered) online declaring himself fit

for work and attended work on at least two separate occasions. Once the

positive test had been shared with kitchen staff, people were both upset

and angry. A number of staff had been in close contact with the head

chef – who had insisted he was fine – so were justifiably concerned they

could have contracted Covid themselves. Rather than condemning the head

chef’s behaviour and allowing other staff to self isolate, which would

have been the correct procedure, management instead decided to close

ranks and add further deceit to the situation: at a gathering of the

kitchen team, we were informed not to seek Covid tests and to carry on

as normal, as well as being told the head chef had followed the ‘correct

protocols’. Such blatant gaslighting would have been deceitful enough,

but kitchen staff were also told not to share the news of the head

chef’s positive test, as this could cause ‘disruption to the business’.

While the above is just one example in one industry, it is indicative of

a wider issue present throughout the pandemic: namely the interests of

Capital and its lackeys taking precedent over the safety and wellbeing

of the working class. Data on Covid deaths in the UK from last year

evidences this point, showing those working in precarious industries –

including chefs – far more likely to die from Covid than the general

population.

What can be done? In short: educate, agitate, and (most importantly)

organise. We have to remember we only have each other, and only by

fighting against bosses’ dirty tricks will we be successful in improving

our lives. Platitudes about ‘a return to normal’ also deliberately

misconstrue the fact life was miserable for those working in precarious

industries well before Covid. Shorter working weeks with no loss of

earnings, better wages for all and vastly improved sick and holiday pay

should be our minimum demands. It will not come through pandering to

politicians, of social democratic stripes or otherwise. Indeed, the

Labour Party seems more interested echoing far-right talking points

about “British Interests” and cosying up to Capital, than it does in

fighting for reduced working hours and better workplace protections.

Direct action and revolutionary trade unions will deliver far more

change than pinning our hopes on electoralism. Even doing small things

like chatting to coworkers about their frustrations/concerns is a good

starting point. Our own list of pandemic demands, including free PPE and

25 hour working weeks with no reduction in pay, gives a snapshot of the

things we should be fighting for. Hospitality staff, like workers in so

many industries, have been treated as disposable by both bosses and the

State during the pandemic of the last year (and beforehand). No more. We

should use our rage to built a better world.