The PS7 Firings

[bonaire]

Tom just tweeted that 4 female servers were fired at PS7 today because none would confess to drinking from a customer's beverage as was reported in his chat yesterday. I feel really bad for the 3 who just lost their jobs b/c one wouldn't fess up. I also hope the chatter didn't make it up....

Link to Tom's chat

[B.A.R.]

I certainly hope that is not true. That would be the worst management decision I have seen in quite some time.

[DonRocks]

Tom just tweeted that 4 female servers were fired at PS7 today because none would confess to drinking from a customer's beverage as was reported in his chat yesterday. I feel really bad for the 3 who just lost their jobs b/c one wouldn't fess up. I also hope the chatter didn't make it up....

Link to Tom's chat

I certainly hope that is not true. That would be the worst management decision I have seen in quite some time.

I just read Tom's chat, and from my point of view, it's the best one in awhile - there was a certain Conan (the comedian, not The Barbarian)-like pissed-off-ness underlying his tone. What could it have been? Oh, how juicy ... how ... how ... click.

<munching on popcorn>,

Dr. D

[bonaire]

I just read Tom's chat, and from my point of view, it's the best one in awhile - there was a certain Conan (the comedian, not The Barbarian)-like pissed-off-ness underlying his tone. What could it have been? Oh, how juicy ... how ... how ... click.

<munching on popcorn>,

Dr. D

Hmmm, could you be referring to a certain comment directed at a certain Mr. T?

[DonRocks]

Tom just tweeted that 4 female servers were fired at PS7 today because none would confess to drinking from a customer's beverage as was reported in his chat yesterday. I feel really bad for the 3 who just lost their jobs b/c one wouldn't fess up. I also hope the chatter didn't make it up....

Link to Tom's chat

I certainly hope that is not true. That would be the worst management decision I have seen in quite some time.

A very astute reader just pointed this out to me (the bolded highlights are my own):

Washington, D.C.: Hi Tom -- my friends and I just had a very unique Restaurant Week dining experience that we wanted to share with you. Our waitress at PS 7's was, to say the least, very quirky. She seemed a little out of it from the start -- she dropped the tray with our drinks, got some drink orders wrong and had this glazed over look throughout. The icing on the cake was when she asked one of my dining companions how he liked his drink. He told her he didn't really like it, at which point she proceeded to pick it up and take a swig before setting it back down on the table (perhaps she'd been doing this throughout the night?). Anyways, she replaced the drink and we still had a good time and came out of it with a good story to tell, but I've never seen any wait staff taste guests' food or drink before!

To quote a friend of mine who works in the industry, "the sound of a falling tray of glassware or plates is magnified to the level of a 747 during takeoff." So how hard could it have been to figure out who the culprit was if this actually happened?

And to quote that very astute reader, "I smell a fish here and it ain't too fresh."

Cheers,

Rocks.

[Waitman]

A very astute reader just pointed this out to me (the bolded highlights are my own):

To quote a friend of mine who works in the industry, "the sound of a falling tray of glassware or plates is magnified to the level of a 747 during takeoff." So how hard could it have been to figure out who the culprit was if this actually happened?

And to quote that very astute reader, "I smell a fish here and it ain't too fresh."

Cheers,

Rocks.

On that note, unless PS 7 is different from any bar I ever worked in, the bartender would have been the go-to person, since having to re-make a round of drinks almost always pisses off the bartenders far in excess of the extra work involved (making it memorable) and often demands so sort of procedural hassle so that the drinks don't end up on the same check twice and the bartender doesn't decide (and get blamed for) that somebody's giving away free booze.

[Miami Danny]

Tom just tweeted that 4 female servers were fired at PS7 today because none would confess to drinking from a customer's beverage as was reported in his chat yesterday. I feel really bad for the 3 who just lost their jobs b/c one wouldn't fess up. I also hope the chatter didn't make it up....

Link to Tom's chat

What I find disturbing is that 4 people lost their jobs because of an anonymous post that seemed pretty far-fetched to begin with. Unless someone is making that part up too...

[goldenticket]

Tom just tweeted that 4 female servers were fired at PS7 today because none would confess to drinking from a customer's beverage as was reported in his chat yesterday. I feel really bad for the 3 who just lost their jobs b/c one wouldn't fess up. I also hope the chatter didn't make it up....

Link to Tom's chat

Thoughtful (and thought-provoking) response on today's chat. (It's from the long-time proprietor of an old haunt of mine - someone who has and continues to works very hard to run a successful business)

Take-away message: let's all try to be a little nicer to each other and deal with things face-to-face rather than stirring up sh*t anonymously in an online forum, where It could cost someone their job. Reiterated by Chef Peter Smith in his response. I'm glad to see more detail on the incident, but I still think the mass firing was pretty harsh - and probably wouldn't have happened if the issue hadn't been aired online.

[Jimmy Chandler]

What I find disturbing is that 4 people lost their jobs because of an anonymous post that seemed pretty far-fetched to begin with. Unless someone is making that part up too...

Thoughtful (and thought-provoking) response on today's chat. (It's from the long-time proprietor of an old haunt of mine - someone who has and continues to works very hard to run a successful business)

Take-away message: let's all try to be a little nicer to each other and deal with things face-to-face rather than stirring up sh*t anonymously in an online forum, where It could cost someone their job. Reiterated by Chef Peter Smith in his response. I'm glad to see more detail on the incident, but I still think the mass firing was pretty harsh - and probably wouldn't have happened if the issue hadn't been aired online.

I've never been to PS7's, but it was high on my list of places to dine. Not any more. I find Chef Smith's actions despicable, possibly illegal (isn't it discrimination to fire people who haven't done anything wrong because they are female?). I did not find his response thoughtful, I found it deplorable. He wrote "When we were unable to determine which server was culpable, we met with all of our female servers together and explained that, unless someone stepped forward, we had no other choice but to dismiss all of them." This is not thoughtful, it shows he cares nothing about his employees. They are only a means to an end, for him to get glory and make money.

I would love to ask the Chef how he would feel as an employee if he were fired because of someone else's actions, which he had no part of. If this post comes across as angry, it's because I am.

[Ericandblueboy]

Thoughtful (and thought-provoking) response on today's chat. (It's from the long-time proprietor of an old haunt of mine - someone who has and continues to works very hard to run a successful business)

Take-away message: let's all try to be a little nicer to each other and deal with things face-to-face rather than stirring up sh*t anonymously in an online forum, where It could cost someone their job. Reiterated by Chef Peter Smith in his response. I'm glad to see more detail on the incident, but I still think the mass firing was pretty harsh - and probably wouldn't have happened if the issue hadn't been aired online.

It doesn't seem fair to fire all 4 unless the four conspired together. But it doesn't sound like there was any sort of conspiracy to cover up for the one who is at fault. No wonder some of those fired told PS 7 to bugger off.

[liz2041]

I agree that it was a harsh reaction and completely over the top given the source. However, I thought Sietsema should have taken more responsibility for posting it in the first place. Reading both the chats and the tweets made me feel like I was watching a school girl start a rumor and then feign disbelief with her buddies in the lunch room when it hit the fan.

[B.A.R.]

To fire 4 servers solely because none would "fess up" is asinine. What if one, or all, of them truly didn't "know"? It would have taken a scant amount of time to determine who the culprit was, if it were true at all.

And to the floor managers of PS7 - where were you when all of this was going down?

[mdt]

I've never been to PS7's, but it was high on my list of places to dine. Not any more. I find Chef Smith's actions despicable, possibly illegal (isn't it discrimination to fire people who haven't done anything wrong because they are female?). I did not find his response thoughtful, I found it deplorable. He wrote "When we were unable to determine which server was culpable, we met with all of our female servers together and explained that, unless someone stepped forward, we had no other choice but to dismiss all of them." This is not thoughtful, it shows he cares nothing about his employees. They are only a means to an end, for him to get glory and make money.

I would love to ask the Chef how he would feel as an employee if he were fired because of someone else's actions, which he had no part of. If this post comes across as angry, it's because I am.

Um, since you obviously did not read the original complaint I am quoting it here.

...Our waitress at PS 7's was, to say the least, very quirky. She seemed a little out of it from the start -- she dropped the tray with our drinks, got some drink orders wrong and had this glazed over look throughout. The icing on the cake was when she asked one of my dining companions how he liked his drink. He told her he didn't really like it, at which point she proceeded to pick it up and take a swig before setting it back down on the table (perhaps she'd been doing this throughout the night?). Anyways, she replaced the drink and we still had a good time and came out of it with a good story to tell, but I've never seen any wait staff taste guests' food or drink before!

I think it is pretty obvious why the females were singled out. You are entitled to your opinion, but try and get all the facts before accusing someone of illegal actions.

[hungry prof]

I think it is pretty obvious why the females were singled out. You are entitled to your opinion, but try and get all the facts before accusing someone of illegal actions.

I'm not qualified to speak to the legality of this firing, so this shouldn't be interpreted as a comment about the law but. . . Imagine if the server in question had been black, and PS7 had, as a consequence of this anonymous posting in an online chat, fired all of its black servers. I dare say there would be, at a minimum, protesters outside of PS7. Why is PS7's action toward its female servers, in principle, any different?

[Pat]

I agree that it was a harsh reaction and completely over the top given the source. However, I thought Sietsema should have taken more responsibility for posting it in the first place. Reading both the chats and the tweets made me feel like I was watching a school girl start a rumor and then feign disbelief with her buddies in the lunch room when it hit the fan.

Reading his chat today, I was interested to see that he claimed that employees have been fired before because of things said in his chat.

(The four women from PS 7's weren't the first restaurant workers to be fired as a result of an anonymous complaint here.)

[Rovers2000]

possibly illegal (isn't it discrimination to fire people who haven't done anything wrong because they are female?).

As someone who deals with matters in this area from time to time, I would be a tad less cavalier in throwing the word "illegal" out. At the end of the day, these employees are "at will" and their employment can be terminated at any time based on managements discretion. While the chef/owner of PS 7's action was (in my opinion) towards the aggressive end of the spectrum, he is well within his rights to terminate the group based on a customer complaint, particularly one that would have a much broader (negative) impact on his business. He would have opened himself up to more risk had he done something like try and guess which waitress fit the general description described by the patron and only dismissed one.

[Rovers2000]

I'm not qualified to speak to the legality of this firing, so this shouldn't be interpreted as a comment about the law but. . . Imagine if the server in question had been black, and PS7 had, as a consequence of this anonymous posting in an online chat, fired all of its black servers. I dare say there would be, at a minimum, protesters outside of PS7. Why is PS7's action toward its female servers, in principle, any different?

Unfortunately right and wrong are very different from legal and illegal. In your example, the action still wouldn't be illegal...however, I will leave the political correct/right/wrong argument for someone else.

[Heather]

To fire 4 servers solely because none would "fess up" is asinine. What if one, or all, of them truly didn't "know"? It would have taken a scant amount of time to determine who the culprit was, if it were true at all.

Agreed. Why handle it as if they're all guilty? If I had been fired for not confessing to something I didn't do, there's no way I'd go back and work there again.

[Jimmy Chandler]

Um, since you obviously did not read the original complaint I am quoting it here.

I think it is pretty obvious why the females were singled out. You are entitled to your opinion, but try and get all the facts before accusing someone of illegal actions.

Um, since you obviously assume facts not in evidence, I think I should clarify. I did read the original complaint. The Chef did not fire only the female server in question -- he fired all the female servers. I did not accuse the Chef of illegal actions, I used the modifier "possibly." That means I don't know, but that it's possible.

As someone who deals with matters in this area from time to time, I would be a tad less cavalier in throwing the word "illegal" out. At the end of the day, these employees are "at will" and their employment can be terminated at any time based on managements discretion.

Again, I don't see myself as being cavalier. I am not an expert in labor law by any means. I don't know DC's laws so will not comment on DC's definition of and enforcement of "at will." But I do know one thing: employers, with a few exceptions, cannot discriminate in hiring or firing based on race, sex or religion. That is federal law. I am sure in this case some lawyer could at least make an argument that the employer's actions were illegal, since he fired only the female servers, three of whom by his own admission did nothing wrong. Whether or not that argument would hold up in court is beyond my mental powers to foresee or predict.

And that is the last I will argue about legality. Even if Chef Smith's actions are completely legal, I believe they are wrong. And I wouldn't feel comfortable visiting his establishment. I would certainly not feel comfortable working for him.

[B.A.R.]

I have made my living in the service industry for the last 18 years, and I have never heard of such a completely ridiculous management decision. I try not to post negative comments here and on other online forums because I realize restaurants are a collection of human beings, and one human being can make a mistake that reflects poorly on the rest of the organization. A single incident never defines an organization.

Until now. I have dined at PS7 several times. I got over the quirky menu lay out. I greatly enjoyed the bar and had a few memorable lunches there. No more.

Peter Smith, you should be ashamed of yourself.

How lax is your dining room oversight that such a catastrophe goes down and NO ONE notices?

How poor is your FOH management that after you attempt to investigate the claim, and by your own admission could not validate the claim, you choose to believe the anonymous report? What was that thought process like-

Servers say they don't know what happened? Check. Bartenders don't know what happened? Check. Managers don't know what happened? Check. So many voided transactions that you cannot see any anomolies? Check.

So you think, "This must be true, I guess I'm in a tough spot and have to FIRE THEM ALL!"

Mr. Smith, you have no idea whether it happened or not, so you arbitrarily decided to ruin lives? And if you somehow have convinced yourself, as often happens after massive lapses of judgement, that this was somehow "their fault". That they weren't good servers anyways. So-and-so was always late, and whats-her-name always misrang things, and the other one had a bad attitude. That's a cop out. You should have addressed their individual issues and re-trained and/or fired each one because they were deficient in their jobs.

But firing someone merely because they matched the description of an anonymous and completely unsubstantiated complaint.

Peter Smith, you should have fired your FOH manager. At the end of your investigation NO ONE in your employ could tell you what the hell was going on in the restaurant that bears your name. So instead of firing the person at the top, the person ultimately responsible for answering all of the questions above, you fired the ones at the bottom.

I have never met you. I assume you are a good person at heart. I assume that this was an aberration. And I assume that right now, you are embarrassed.

If not, you should be.

[ema]

This was badly handled by the owner. There is something authoritarian and archaic about dishing out punishment for all suspects rather than the one perpetrator.

[goldenticket]

I did not find his response thoughtful, I found it deplorable. .... He wrote "When we were unable to determine which server was culpable, we met with all of our female servers together and explained that, unless someone stepped forward, we had no other choice but to dismiss all of them." This is not thoughtful, it shows he cares nothing about his employee.

Just want to clarify that my reference to a "thoughtful" response applied only to the first post on Tom's chat, the one from Julie Wilson of Garrett's.

[Jimmy Chandler]

Just want to clarify that my reference to a "thoughtful" response applied only to the first post on Tom's chat, the one from Julie Wilson of Garrett's.

I just re-read your post and want to say "my bad."

At least no one will get fired at random for my misunderstanding.

[KMango]

PS 7's to me = 7Up and caffeine

Never been there.

Never will.

(shameful way to destroy livelihoods)

(always more sides to a story)

(but i echo the b.a.r.)

[DaRiv18]

Those who will never visit PS7's again based on the owner's willingness to fire multiple suspects are hypocrites. When you don't visit a restaurant, you take money out of not only the owner's pockets, but also out of the pockets of the waitstaff that you claim you support. You are effectively firing the waitstaff and bartenders, too. So that's a rock I wouldn't throw, unless you plan to stand outside PS7s and hand $20s to the servers as they come and go.

[Michael Landrum]

This was badly handled by the owner. There is something authoritarian and archaic about dishing out punishment for all suspects rather than the one perpetrator.

What is so baffling to me is that there is a simple, fool-proof method, known to all, of determining who the culprit was--one based on scientific reasoning and deduction that would not have put any of the innocent parties at risk. Click.

[Waitman]

Those who will never visit PS7's again based on the owner's willingness to fire multiple suspects are hypocrites. When you don't visit a restaurant, you take money out of not only the owner's pockets, but also out of the pockets of the waitstaff that you claim you support. You are effectively firing the waitstaff and bartenders, too. So that's a rock I wouldn't throw, unless you plan to stand outside PS7s and hand $20s to the servers as they come and go.

Yeah, that's the same defense Exxon deployed in response to the boycott launched in the wake of the Exxon Valdez disaster: you're just hurting the gas station owners. And if you boycott the Nationals because they suck, you're just hurting the hot dog sellers. The owner gets to use employees as human shields. They should never have to be responsible.

Not that I'm boycotting. Not that he would miss my business if I did. Spit in the ocean, as grandma used to say. Or vermouth in the gin.

But, while we're heaping approbation on a business owner trying to rid himself of an employee who publicly humiliated him and threatened his livelihood and that of every other employee, let's set aside a measure of scorn for the -- oh, let's go easy on her -- sniveling coward who was willing to blow up three coworkers rather than admit to her own actions, even in that moment when the four had been given their notice and the chef stomped off.

What's the opposite of taking one for the team? Taking the team down with you?

[Jimmy Chandler]

Those who will never visit PS7's again based on the owner's willingness to fire multiple suspects are hypocrites. When you don't visit a restaurant, you take money out of not only the owner's pockets, but also out of the pockets of the waitstaff that you claim you support. You are effectively firing the waitstaff and bartenders, too. So that's a rock I wouldn't throw, unless you plan to stand outside PS7s and hand $20s to the servers as they come and go.

It's great to see you start calling people names. It's fine with me that you disagree, but I don't appreciate being called a hypocrite.

I have a limited budget and time in this life to spend on dining out. I choose to spend it at establishments where I will enjoy the food, drink and service. If I know that an establishment mistreats its employees, I will choose to spend my money elsewhere. This is in no way hypocrisy. I will spend that money somewhere, and that restaurant's employees will benefit in some small way from my patronage. Since it won't be at PS7's, at least I know that Chef Smith will not be one of those people. I'd much rather go to one of Mr. Landrum's growing empire, as I know he cares for his employees and would never treat them in such a callous manner.

If you can't grasp this concept, there's nothing I can do to help.

[synaesthesia]

Those who will never visit PS7's again based on the owner's willingness to fire multiple suspects are hypocrites. When you don't visit a restaurant, you take money out of not only the owner's pockets, but also out of the pockets of the waitstaff that you claim you support. You are effectively firing the waitstaff and bartenders, too. So that's a rock I wouldn't throw, unless you plan to stand outside PS7s and hand $20s to the servers as they come and go.

I disagree with this analysis. In the short term, yes, you are penalizing the wait staff, but in the long term the odds are that this ultimately penalizes the owner far more. Good wait staff are hard to come by, and as was demonstrated in Peter's letter, a good one will find a new job quickly. If they can't find a new job quickly, well then maybe they were not in the appropriate profession to start.

[DaRiv18]

Or vermouth in the gin.

I'm more apt to argue with the minuscule proportions you allude to in your martini than with the rest of your post. I will say that I don't think the owner should "never be responsible" for this action. I just think confronting the owner with your displeasure is one way to 1) express your opinion in an appropriate manner and 2) not affect the other employee's livelihood.

This entire episode is just crazy. Is there any fact that is undisputed?

If I know that an establishment mistreats its employees, I will choose to spend my money elsewhere. This is in no way hypocrisy . . . If you can't grasp this concept, there's nothing I can do to help.

So now the owner mistreats his employees? Sounds like this was an isolated incident, that started out as legitimately addressing an alleged massive service breakdown.

Now, there is a chance that I won't go back to PS7s based on this fallout . . . if the few employees that I do know there walk away. In the meantime, who knows what the hell happened.

[Ericandblueboy]

I just think confronting the owner with your displeasure is one way to 1) express your opinion in an appropriate manner and 2) not affect the other employee's livelihood.

So every one of us should go tell PS what we think about his management skills and then sit down and pay for a meal? Aren't we by patronizing and paying also benefiting PS directly?

Is there any fact that is undisputed?

Yes, PS threw out the baby with the bathwater. I don't think anyone is disputing that fact.

So now the owner mistreats his employees? Sounds like this was an isolated incident, that started out as legitimately addressing an alleged massive service breakdown.

It is an isolated incident, yet it is caused by only 1 employee. Why should 3 employees who have nothing to do with the breakdown and with no knowledge of such breakdown get fired?

As for whether PS' practice is legal or illegal, I suppose someone with standing can sort that out. I'm not boycotting PS 7 over this incident but that may be because I'm not a big fan of that restaurant to start with and since he doesn't have my business anyway, it's silly for me to get all righteous and indignant.

[DaRiv18]

I'm getting PMs from those who are upset with me. I'd be happy to buy them a drink at Gina's bar to smooth it over. I'm sorry if I offended your sensibilities, but you're talking about impacting people's livelihoods here.

[Ericandblueboy]

I'm getting PMs from those who are upset with me. I'd be happy to buy them a drink at Gina's bar to smooth it over. I'm sorry if I offended your sensibilities, but you're talking about impacting people's livelihoods here.

I don't know Gina personally but I do know that Gina is a bartender at PS7. Anyone who accepts your offer is directly benefiting Peter Smith.

[TedE]

In the meantime, who knows what the hell happened.

Including Peter Smith. If there was a way to corroborate the claim made in Tom's chat there would have been no reason to fire 4 people. Was that anonymous posting the only piece of evidence he had to go on? I mean, c'mon, nobody ever lies on the Internet!!

[Ericandblueboy]

I also don't think Peter Smith is a callous employer. I think he made a very big mistake that happens to be a PR nightmare. He's overzealous in his proactive approach. I see this boiling over until next week and PS will issue another apology.

[jayandstacey]

Dumb question here, but what was so bad about sipping the drink at the table? I know it is odd. But consider...

The way I read the anonymous original post, the diner had an issue with the drink and was sending it back. By taking the drink, the server is silently committing to two things; one, that the drink is no longer the diner's and two, that the forthcoming replacement drink will be an improvement.

So maybe the server was kind of saying "OK, before I pour this down the drain, let me take a taste so I can help the barkeep fix it."

Eh, it is still weird and unsettling - and difficult to defend. I suppose the server should have asked what needed improving, or if the diner wanted a different replacement drink. And maybe that did happen. And maybe the diner egged her to try it - "see how bad it is..it is way too salty...see?"

At the end of the day, it is hard to say what's believable - the original complaint? Did the Chef's response really happen? Is this a freak alignment of planets or a systemic breakdown? Or an attention-getter?

It has certainly become something much bigger than a server taking a sip from a surrendered glass.

[Merry Mary]

Reading both the chats and the tweets made me feel like I was watching a school girl start a rumor and then feign disbelief with her buddies in the lunch room when it hit the fan.

Gossip Girl!

[kirite]

Gossip Girl!

Have the anonymous diners stepped forward to identify themselves or provided any additional information about this incident? The accusation was very serious, and the consequences have been significant. I wonder if the diners have responded to Tom's invitation to contact him with more information.

[ema]

I am kind of with jayandstacey on this. Personally, I wouldn't have been offended if the same incident happened to me, and it seems the anonymous diner wasn't offended either. The tone of the post was more like "oh guess what, this weird thing happened to me the other day". The only thing I find disturbing was the over the top decision the owner made in response to post. Who believes everything wrote

[Josh Radigan]

I am kind of with jayandstacey on this. Personally, I wouldn't have been offended if the same incident happened to me, and it seems the anonymous diner wasn't offended either. The tone of the post was more like "oh guess what, this weird thing happened to me the other day". The only thing I find disturbing was the over the top decision the owner made in response to post. Who believes everything wrote

Uh, well look at it for another view point. You make a comment to a server that your soup isn't hot enough, or that it tastes salty, or something is off. And without hesitation they stand there, pull out a spoon or fork and take a bite of your food right in front of you. get the point. There is a discreet way of handling that situation, take the drink away after listeningt o the comment, go over to service bar area, take a straw and tap a little amount up and turn from the crowd and taste. Its all in the handling of the complaint that makes a difference between listening to the problem, or taking offense at what is being said. As for Chef Smiths actions, another way to look at the situation is simply put through this forum. Online food blogs have become such a bonus to many in this business as you can see by the wide array of restaurants that are mentioned on this site. From all different styles,locations, and price points. So many diverse culinary experiences shared by so many of you, and yet on occasion there is the one rogue editorial comment that seems to set off a chain reaction. Sometimes there is a quick response to the validity to the situation/review. Then everyone sides up, those for and those against. We saw it with Bebo, Galileo in its day, to the over development of the Clarendon area, to Ray's and the empire. Chef Smith took action in his way, to some it was undeserved in the way he treated his employees, to others he had no choice since there seemed to be a stalemate as to the culprit, and only Chef Smith has to answer for his actions. That is why he is the owner and has that right.

[jayandstacey]

Uh, well look at it for another view point. You make a comment to a server that your soup isn't hot enough, or that it tastes salty, or something is off. And without hesitation they stand there, pull out a spoon or fork and take a bite of your food right in front of you. get the point. There is a discreet way of handling that situation, take the drink away after listeningt o the comment, go over to service bar area, take a straw and tap a little amount up and turn from the crowd and taste. Its all in the handling of the complaint that makes a difference between listening to the problem, or taking offense at what is being said. As for Chef Smiths actions, another way to look at the situation is simply put through this forum. Online food blogs have become such a bonus to many in this business as you can see by the wide array of restaurants that are mentioned on this site. From all different styles,locations, and price points. So many diverse culinary experiences shared by so many of you, and yet on occasion there is the one rogue editorial comment that seems to set off a chain reaction. Sometimes there is a quick response to the validity to the situation/review. Then everyone sides up, those for and those against. We saw it with Bebo, Galileo in its day, to the over development of the Clarendon area, to Ray's and the empire. Chef Smith took action in his way, to some it was undeserved in the way he treated his employees, to others he had no choice since there seemed to be a stalemate as to the culprit, and only Chef Smith has to answer for his actions. That is why he is the owner and has that right.

Agreed. There are two views to each of the Chef and Waitress' actions: that the action was appalling and completely unacceptable, or that the action was unusual but not the end of the world.

I completely agree that the waitress' action was not discreet and inappropriate, especially in a finer establishment. I was just pointing out that there are scenarios that at least explain the action. Not justify, but explain why a waitress might have thought it OK, despite being wrong. So too with Chef Smith; firing innocent employees seems unacceptable on the surface but I can imagne scenarios where that's the outcome and it is certainly his right as owner.

Interesting all around.

[Miami Danny]

Agreed. There are two views to each of the Chef and Waitress' actions: that the action was appalling and completely unacceptable, or that the action was unusual but not the end of the world.

I completely agree that the waitress' action was not discreet and inappropriate, especially in a finer establishment. I was just pointing out that there are scenarios that at least explain the action. Not justify, but explain why a waitress might have thought it OK, despite being wrong. So too with Chef Smith; firing innocent employees seems unacceptable on the surface but I can imagne scenarios where that's the outcome and it is certainly his right as owner.

Interesting all around.

We still do not know if what the waitress supposedly did even happened, do we? In fact, was there a pattern of said waitress just being a horrible employee? Not according to any available evidence. But we apparently DO know that Mr. Smith fired four people in an extremely public and appalling manner. Is it his right? Of course. Will it blow over. Of course. Will everyone who was fired get a job and be able to pay their rent on time? I hope so. But Mr. Smith actions are those of a bully over the powerless. And I would guess that this is not the first time his staff has been abused by him, nor that it will be the last.

[DaRiv18]

Dumb question here, but what was so bad about sipping the drink at the table?

The chatter strongly insinuates that the waitress was already drunk before sipping the drink. It's a more serious charge than what you're focusing on.

[deangold]

Not one of us was there. Not one has stepped forward with a verifyable story for the public. The only fact to go on is Pete Smith's note to Tom {I am assuming that it was printed in full which is just that, an assumption}. Some spin it one way, others another; but there is a paucity of fact and lots of surmise.

Roshomon only had 4 versions of the story!

[jayandstacey]

We still do not know if what the waitress supposedly did even happened, do we? In fact, was there a pattern of said waitress just being a horrible employee? Not according to any available evidence. But we apparently DO know that Mr. Smith fired four people in an extremely public and appalling manner. Is it his right? Of course. Will it blow over. Of course. Will everyone who was fired get a job and be able to pay their rent on time? I hope so. But Mr. Smith actions are those of a bully over the powerless. And I would guess that this is not the first time his staff has been abused by him, nor that it will be the last.

Which is why my original post questions what is believable. We don't know. We know there was an accusation, and we know that there's a reasonably good chance that the owner's actions happened (to the extent we trust Tom Seitsema to verify).

We also don't know all the details of how the waitresses responded when approached by the owner. It might have been clear that they all knew the answer to what really happened, but no one was going to admit to anything. So they all go down with the ship, and that's not such a bad thing (if that's how it happened).

We just don't know. We really don't, and likely never will.

But I know this is kind of fun.

[jayandstacey]

The chatter strongly insinuates that the waitress was already drunk before sipping the drink. It's a more serious charge than what you're focusing on.

Agreed, there's plenty of insuation.

My position on the "taking the sip" part was chosen as it was the only accusation made about the waitress that really doesn't have an explanation. The other accusations are more obviously excusable or explainable - if one gives the benefit of doubt to the waitress. The glazed eyes could be a malady or tiredness, while the muffed order and dropped tray simply happens on occasion. If one assumes the waitress was drunk - well, then all accusations kind of lump together into a more serious assessment. I chose to address the single thing that was inexplicable and took the episode from clumsy service to really bad.

Agreed that together, the incidents look like the waitress might be drunk. Who knows. But remember that the only ones we KNOW were drinking were the guests that complained:

Washington, D.C.: Hi Tom -- my friends and I just had a very unique Restaurant Week dining experience that we wanted to share with you. Our waitress at PS 7's was, to say the least, very quirky. She seemed a little out of it from the start -- she dropped the tray with our drinks, got some drink orders wrong and had this glazed over look throughout. The icing on the cake was when she asked one of my dining companions how he liked his drink. He told her he didn't really like it, at which point she proceeded to pick it up and take a swig before setting it back down on the table (perhaps she'd been doing this throughout the night?). Anyways, she replaced the drink and we still had a good time and came out of it with a good story to tell, but I've never seen any wait staff taste guests' food or drink before!

(taken from Washingtonpost.com - I don't mean to break copyright - if this is an issue, please delete the quote)

[Banco]

I've been reading about Jack the Ripper. Apparently he killed and horribly mutilated a number of women, and nobody has been able to find out who he was. This happened about 120 years ago. I guess the swig-the-drink-at-the-table-gal will live in similarly obscure infamy.

[Mark Slater]

Could I just point out, as a "grizzled restaurant veteran", that nobody can drop a tray of drinks in a restaurant without anyone on the staff noticing it, especially my friend Gina.

[kirite]

Could I just point out, as a "grizzled restaurant veteran", that nobody can drop a tray of drinks in a restaurant without anyone on the staff noticing it, especially my friend Gina.

Inasmuch as the accusers have chosen anonymity over transparency and have apparently declined to write to Sietsema to clarify their experience, it is possible that the entire incident is a hoax. Who knows?

[Mark Slater]

Inasmuch as the accusers have chosen anonymity over transparency and have apparently declined to write to Sietsema to clarify their experience, it is possible that the entire incident is a hoax. Who knows?

Some of the gentle readers here may be too young to remember this from the early days of the internet, but: