MattyC

It really didn't mention food much, did it? Reading it again, it sounds like someone wrote about an experience at the VR booth at E3, that had some good food sitting around.

So you're saying that some chefs aren't greedy? As I said, I dislike the article, but I think the underlying argument is valid in some cases - a lot of chefs with this 'fancy' or 'Haute' cuisine are playing too much into the art ideals, and yes, being greedy. Of course we should get paid to put out quality food - when a dish is costed out, you cover your costs of items, account for labor, and yes, calculate a percentage so that you can make some money on it - calling food art to justify overcharging people is silly. And just because you know what the price is, doesn't mean it's not overpriced - overpriced means 'too expensive', so I'm unsure where the comment about a known price can't be overpriced came from. Going with this train of thought, I can call my food art, and say I want a really good living, and be able to get away with charging a 700% markup - pretty sure that isn't how things work, or shouldn't, anyway. Not to mention, I would actually feel bad - it's just food. It won't last, and in the end, plops out in the toilet as waste. Sports is different - I'm not saying that's completely justified either, but at the end of the day, they're rapidly destroying their bodies, and day in and day out physical demands would far exceed mine - and I worked for almost half a year straight, no days off, 100+ hours a week. They're getting paid compensation for having worn out *everything* by 40. Me, as much as I work right now opening my restaurant, and running a company, as it stands right now, I didn't put pants on today. At the end of the day, whether it's too high, or too low, there are lines to cross, and I feel supporting excuses just because people say it's 'art' is ridiculous. I want to make a good living, support my wife and pets as best as I can, but I know what greed is, and giving people who want to take advantage of others' wallets for the sake of art is just making it worse. This isn't all chefs, expensive or whatever you'd like to call it, I'm just saying - there are those out there who are greedy, who do charge far too much for the worth and justify with an 'artistic' excuse, because they know there are people dumb enough to buy into it. Maybe I'm just going too far, I know this is just about a shitty article, that yes, *is* snarky and bad, but I detest people who charge too much for weak reasons - regardless of profession.

I want to agree with you. I do. On a moral basis, you're right - to each his own, let the other guy do his thing, etc. I have one main issue with a lot of 'fancy cooking', though and it's why I side more with the article - I know I'm being a jerk with it, so yes, I will say you are correct, just let me vent as to why, and maybe some people will agree, maybe a lot won't. I'm also not saying that the article itself was great either, but I do sort of agree with the writer behind the idea. It's not worth it. Plain and simple, it's not. I know the majority of techniques used with a lot of this - as most people with a tv, a cookbook, or any sort of modern day restaurant experience would, at least to a simple extent. How much of what you're paying is really towards the product, and the time it takes to make it, as opposed to paying the 'idea' behind it? There's a restaurant in my area that was huge for a while. Chef had finally won his James Beard, and they made sure everyone knew it. Every help wanted ad had 'COME WORK FOR JAMES BEARD WINNER' at the very least 4 times per ad. The chef was in every single local paper, everything. One of the papers did an article about his 74$ roast chicken. Yes, you read that right, a simple, every day, chicken, for 74 bucks. They talked about 'why' it was that much. You want to know why? Because the legs were 'sous vide', and the chicken was brined in a 'special brine' for 2 days. But the restaurant was known for it's chef, and they plated everything very artistically, made everything in house, etc etc - all fine things, sure. I'm not knocking that. But a chicken, being cooking with techniques the next culinary student could do from home, in no way warrented 74$. The chicken wasn't even some insanely 'hyper local' farm raised blah blah either, it was bell and evans. So to me, this insane. It was made with modern techniques, it was plated very beautifully, and I'm sure the chef thought it was his version of 'art', or at least in part, so my question is this - why should I support that or be OK with an example like that? A lot of these price tags are the chefs being greedy, and in truth not really paying for anything more than their next restaurant - they aren't thinking of the customers, just themselves. Why should I be ok with paying more for a menu item that says 'Basil leaf in the style of jade "curry"', or worshipping a 35$ gnocchi dish with 4 tiny gnocchi arranged on the plate with tweezers, when it cost them 1$ , and I'm still going to leave starving? I think it's fine to let people do what they do and call it ok, but there has to be a line there somewhere at a certain point. If an idea is worth the money, I think it's great to pay, even if it's pricey, but with so many 'haute' restaurants, it's not, it's just being greedy, because they know people with money to blow with find it "art" and pay 300% the cost to ad another pic on their blog or instagram post. Again, not saying the article itself was great, I just have my own ideas with this sort of dining.

Interesting. Seems pretty nuts. I wonder how much of a market for something of this extreme nature there really is? Culinary trends seem to be aiming towards more casual, this is just a big ol' middle finger towards that. Call it the practical guy in me, all I could think of when I saw that a meal was 1,900 per person was "Well shit, that's rent plus bills for a month". I suppose though if money is no object, people would be stoked, although I would imagine this would be more of a one-off, since a ton of effort would go into making a new menu and 'experience' frequently. Unlikely it would change more than once per year, I would assume.

I actually don't think even think aside from being able to buy booze and live, money or stability off the bat matters - even places that are offering low-tier cooks 15-16 per hour, with a 1k sign on bonus and student loan help, can't get more than a handful applying each week, from what others around here have told me. Then you have the beard nominated places, the local 'best new resto' places, maybe offering 13-14, those also still can't get anyone. It's the simple fact there aren't enough cooks to restaurants. I mean, if money were the factor, all of the big places would be stacked with what they're offering, and they're worse off than even some lesser known places. @gfweb in theory, yes, that's a great idea, one most places try, and do - I had a few interns last few places I ran, and it's great - when you have the time and experienced staff to train them. The issue is that right now, most restaurant can't staff entirely of interns or kids just out of culinary school. You just can't, and that's essentially what it would be. Nurturing young cooks requires time, and other experienced staff to run normal operations, or help train the kids as well. But what do you do when you don't even have anyone with experience? That's the issue everyone is facing. Barely anyone in the talent pool and all, and the few that are applying, have barely any experience. People don't have 3 months to properly train the green interns or recent grads, people can barely staff what they have for existing kitchens.

I know right? I can't stand those things. Uncomfortable, and you know what, people still can look professional without whites, and I'd rather have people judge me for my food rather than how carefully folded my sleeves are. Plus a good apron just looks nicer, although I suppose that's more just personal preference to style. Just too many wannabe chefs and caterers think buying an Egyptian cotton chef coat for 80 bucks automatically gives you talent. Irks me. Off topic, I know, but it's one of the few things that really get under my skin when I work with people who 'need' a coat to feel validated.

Yes and no - to me, being given more freedom, and a chance to be creative, come later, and for me, have more to do with staff retention, than actually getting them in the door. I know I went off on them a bit, but I (think?) I tried to say that I didn't think that these were bad things to instill in cooks, but to list this as a reasons why people weren't even applying in the first place were silly, not to mention that as a requirement of bringing someone on, I'd have to fluff up their self esteem for them? Nope. So, after interviewing, and listening to other chef friends in the industry hire over the course of the week, I'm even more certain that it's these two primary things: Too many restaurants, and the media glitzing everything up. Here's why I think that, and almost nothing to do with shitty pay (which has always been there): First, pay is always being listed as 'to be determined' with not just myself, but a lot of good restaurants around here - I would think if pay were one of the main issues, people would at least apply, and inquire as to what they would get paid if they were to get it, before even not showing/cancelling/etc. Only the much larger places even list right in the ad what they would pay, still get almost no responses - even the places paying well with sign on bonuses, health plans off the bat, etc. Just doesn't seem like compensation is any more of a factor than it was before - I actually almost believe maybe they just all think even if they start off getting paid like this, they'll make it 'big', so in the end won't matter. Another occasion, I actually had a person 'need' to change an interview date on me because '3 of his favorite restaurants were expanding again', and he wanted to set up a time with them ASAP - aside from how stupid that was, I don't remember the last time in my career I heard that 3 places I loved were getting new locations all at the same time, let alone one really. I remember just being happy that <restaurant> was awesome, not hearing that <restaurant> was now trying to open it's 3rd location in 3 years. They need to stop being greedy. Another example being the week we announced that my place was opening, and where, we were the only 'new' place talked about that whole week on Eater and other media sites - every other single bit of opening or hiring news was another local restaurant expanding. It's nuts. Concerning how I feel the media has been fucking things up, I've had I think 2 people stand out with this in particular. One, when I called to just *set up* the interview, actually told me one of his best skills was making fluid gels - not talking about management skills, nothing about knife work, what stations he's worked/familiar with, even a dish he's been proud of, etc etc. Just out of the blue, 'Hire me because I can make purple gel'. I still ended up interviewing him, and at least giving him a stage (he didn't seem like a complete idiot) - turns out, he had only worked at 'modern' restaurants out in chicago and here, and literally had no idea how to do almost any of the basics. He was almost my age and had no idea how to properly sear something. It was a disaster, and flubbed almost all of the food he made for the stage. And yes, he made me gel. Meyer lemon I believe it was. You know what position he had interviewed for? Sous. I wouldn't even give him line cook with how he treated some of that product. Another, after an 'ok' interview, ended up turning the position down (a prep cook, mind you), because we'll be wearing restaurant shirts, and having nice aprons made for the staff, not long sleeve chef coats. This was the deal breaker. Not the food, pay, schedule, but the fact that we weren't going to 'look like chefs'. Now granted, these were the two extremes - most people were normal, and I ended up already hiring at least 2 people, and have plenty of interviews over the course of the weekend, but come on. There was one other that was just as ridiculous, I just didn't even interview him - his resume actually listed 'restaurant instagram manager' to his job skills. Maybe this isn't a lot of wackos, but it's two more than I got last year with claims and skills as stupid as these. I originally asked because I honestly don't know how to fix this, as it doesn't seem like one or two issues, it's a million - but I do think media and number of people expanding are the two largest factors. As long as restos are opening at this rate, I just don't see it getting any better, and I think the other reasons people are listing and reading about are more about staff retention, which honestly most people aren't even getting to.

On an entirely different planet, Chefsfeed put an article up today as well about why nobody can staff up their restaurants, saying they polled a bunch of cooks, and say the reason is because the cooks have... self-esteem issues? http://sharing.chefsfeed.com/stories/227-what-cooks-want I had to comment on the article because to me, this is ridiculous. Essentially the writeup talk about how cooks need to chefs to give them a self-esteem bump, make them feel good, and encourages cooks to look for the jobs that are only the most creative and envelope pushing. So what I got from the article is that nobody, anywhere, can find enough talented staff, or just staff in general, because we aren't creative enough, and because we don't list 'emotional fluffer' next to our chef job descriptions. Not because there are too many restaurants opening, and that cooks and being promoted too fast. No.

Ha yeah that's me, I didn't know they were going to have me as the closer, which I won't argue with - turn out the reporter will be moving this month to within a block from where I'm opening the place up, so she was personally pumped, so I think she wanted to give her own props to me using me a little more than the others. Although with my case in particular, I told her the reason why I hadn't started hiring anyone yet was because interviews weren't scheduled until this week, but whatever helps the article I guess - the point still stands, it's bleak as hell, and saying I get about 6 per week isn't an exaggeration, that's actually how bad things are here. Sign on bonuses for *line cooks* are actually being offered at some of the larger places. That's how desperate people are. I actually had someone yesterday offer to pay me money to delay my place from opening so I could come work for them and help them out because they weren't sure how they were going to start staffing their restaurants soon. Kind of insane.

Apparently Eater finally sees this as a problem as well, finally: http://www.eater.com/2015/8/10/9126169/restaurant-chef-shortage I do agree Deryn, with the first one, quite a lot - personally I think a lot of the media has warped younger cooks into thinking they can pick up an isi canister, a chef coat, and launch a restaurant or at least a cdc position after only 3 years in a kitchen. The article does touch up on the other obvious subjects as well, with the whole low pay thing and no health insurance - I don't see the no health as much these days, I've seen a lot of places try and do at least something, but yeah, pay still sucks.

So this may be region specific, or it may be everywhere, but in my entire career, I've never seen such bleak times in trying to get staff - and not just talented and experienced staff, I mean *anyone*. I live and work in the Boston area, and right now, I can't think of a single restaurant that isn't hard pressed for staff - FOH and BOH both, to the point where I routinely get texts from chef friends, reps, managers, asking if I can sub in for a line spot on __ night of the week. This isn't occasional either - I get these requests almost every weekend/week. My wife recently took control of a new restaurant from the group she works for, and with them it's bleak to the point where last week they were so short staffed I had to cancel my work plans to come cook for them, since aside from the dishwasher, she had *no* line staff on a Saturday night. When putting ads out for resumes this past week, she got 4, and the best one had maybe 4 years experience, most of which was in a school cafeteria. That's not just her place either, it's roughly the same all across town. Now, I'm currently in the final month, maybe month and a half until my own place opens, and have started looking for staff, and it's rough, to put it lightly - I've gotten some response, but not nearly what I would be getting a year ago at this time. I did an interview with a reporter for a local paper today about the shortage of help because it's such a big deal where recent Beard winners, and incredibly well-known chefs and groups can't even hold enough staff, not just us little operations. So I'm wondering - do others have this issue, or is this somehow Boston area specific? (which would surprise me). I know one of the reasons why Boston is getting hit hard by it is because so many chefs and resto owners are getting amazingly greedy - an incredible amount opening a 2nd, even a 3rd restaurant is as many years, flooding the market with yet another taco/burger/latest trend idea. Another reason I think, at least here why things are rough, is because inexperienced people are being promoted too early - I've had resumes pass through where they've been a 'sous' for the past year or two, when they have maybe 4 years *total* of kitchen experience - a lot of places are promoting people too fast just to hold on to people, so they don't get even more screwed, so the few people looking have no real experience or idea what they're doing. Just curious as to what people think, especially if they're dealing with similar situations right now, or if they've had to deal with similar situations in the past, and how they dealt with them. I remember when I first moved to Boston, there were an incredible amount of people looking, and barely any jobs - I was very lucky at the time to land something right when I moved here. Now, every single restaurant is looking, and barely anyone to fill the most desperate of spots.

Very much agreed. I think if this whole situation had happened within....5, maybe 10 minutes? It would be a much different view of the general public. But going on almost an hour is just outright absurd. Even if there is exaggeration by a little bit of time this way or that, it's still a crazy amount of time to have an unchecked child causing such a disruption. With this much time, it really does fall onto the parents. The child obviously isn't in control of this, and if the owner has *tried* to be reasonable, then who else is left? Maybe yelling *at* the kid didn't do much for the situation, but at the end of a reasonable person's rope, I would probably do the same thing. And if you look at it another way, it was more to fix the situation than the parents tried :-p

I, and seemingly most people, side with the owner, and to be perfectly honest, I can't understand for the life of me how anyone would side otherwise. I mean come on, as others have pointed out, 40 minutes? Nevermind disrupting the meals of dozens of others, where is the discipline from the parents? If I was acting like an entitled shit, or on the flip side, was miserable and screaming, my parents would have done something about it, either way. I'm from Maine, a little rain never hurt me - pretty sure if the parents decided to take the little one out for a bit, it would have been possible. You have a screaming and undisciplined child, ruining the meals and time of many others. That's inconsiderate, and probably teaching the little one it's ok to just keep screaming. It's only a matter of time until someone reaches their boiling point. Little surprised at how big this story got. To me it's a no-brainer.

Don't have a *ton* to add, everyone else has made some really great points and suggestions, but I'll give my 2 cents in case it helps. Working a lot is familiar to me, I don't remember the last kitchen I worked with less than 80 hours - to some people it's easier, to others it's harder, but either way, you need to make and stick to a schedule and think healthy long-term. Constantly changing sleep patterns, having to use booze or sleep pills to try and get sleep, etc, all wreck your body. Same goes for soda and energy drinks - it may seem like a good idea to keep with the instant gratification aids, but in the long run, it's SO much worse. I think about 2 years ago it is now, I took over a restaurant that needed work, and on top of that, we were incredibly short staffed. I ended up having to work every single day for about 4 1/2 months (after which I got a single day off,then worked another 2 straight), 8 or 9 am until the kitchen closed at midnight, with a 45-minute commute by subway each way - that was over 100 hours of work alone,not counting commute time. It was nuts. I pounded caffeine at work, averaging about 7 TALL red bull a day (not joking), sodas, and when I got home I'd have to have bourbon just to try and relax and de-stress enough to sleep, then do it all again. I did ok, but felt like shit, and was always tired, even more than I should have been. Halfway through I figured all the crutches were just slapping band-aids on it all, so I quit all the snacks and red bull cold turkey. Holy shit the first 2 days were a nightmare, but after that I made myself a schedule, tried to eat good foods, and after a bit I was feeling a lot better - not always being as tired, being able to wake up on time, etc. Making myself wake up at a certain time each day no matter the schedule, eating better, and avoiding the aids while I was at work helped out so much, and to be honest, not sure I could have kept up after a while if I kept just trying to pound caffeine to stay up. A little if fine sometimes, but once you start relying on it all, it's downhill. Point of the story? Treat yourself well. This is a shitty line of work in terms of care to our bodies and minds, and any little bit helps. Maybe you can't exercise as often as you'd like, and maybe you can't get in 8 hours of sleep (although I still don't buy into *everyone* needing that much, I rarely ever sleep that much, even with time off), but do what you can. Getting your body used to a schedule, and not filling it with crap helps out incredibly in the long run, trust me. And even more important than that, even if it's just 5 minutes a day, make time for your mental health. Stress and strain exhaust you even more, on top of the hours - sleep and energy are just half of it. I'd give exact advice, but the others have helped with that, and honestly it's different for everyone. I guess for me it boiled down to treating myself the best I could, sticking to a schedule to get my body used to a rhythm, thinking long term, and find something to help de-stress, even just a little.

20% here is more or less the norm. Can be a lot higher at places with a heavy industry crowd.

This is where I'm a little confused - What someone would be selling a dish for, should be reflected by what you're getting the product in for anyway: It scales, regardless of what the product is, special or no special item. If I get something in at a lower price, I can charge a lower price - sure I want to make money, but I don't want to rip people off. Are you thinking that because it's a 'first rate' steak I'd be charging a high price, regardless of what I get it in for? My values are to make awesome food for people and not rip them off - i apologize if I'm missing the point, just in my experience, my specials are more geared towards what I want to be trying out and making, more than what deal I can get something in for as a deal. If I can get a lower price on something great, if not, that's fine too - you adjust everything according to what your cost is. I don't really understand asking why adjusting the selling price of something based on cost would be related to compromising values?

Just a fun list I come back to often. More for just ideas than recipes. 'Dead and fermented' by Henrik Yde 'A work in progress' Rene Redzepi 'Japanese farm food' by Nancy Singleton Hachisu 'Faviken' Magnus Nilsson 'Smoke and pickles' Edward Lee 'Heritage' Sean Brock I like books with more inspiration, backstory, and just a general sense of why as opposed to just recipes. I like to think rather than just cook. Find a lot of the more in depth books inspiring these days.

I do think restaurants deserve a second chance, provided they aren't just a flat out shithole to begin with. You've been there a million times and they fuck up, of course they deserve a second chance. A place has great reviews, friends say it's great, you go, and your meal is crap. I'd give it a second chance. Front of the house doesn't check up on you in your silly timed amount of time, but your food is great. Second chance. I could keep going, but at the end of the day, 90% of people don't understand what happens behind the scenes with most restaurants. They like to think they do from reading forums, watching shows, etc, but they don't. Restaurants are run by humans. Shit happens to humans. Humans have bad days. You buy something from a highly rated, highly recommended electronics company, but it's defective when you get it - do you bitch about it online, and never even give it a glance again? Or do you exchange it for a new one, thinking that the first was just a fluke? Most people would exchange, and that's something, for the most part, stamped from molds and machines, with less chance of error - yet a business that can be temperamental due to everything from weather, a local sporting event, time of day or year, or even public transportation, gets a one-off? I'm not saying every single restaurant deserves that, and I'm not saying all of that as an excuse for those that don't deserve it - but what I am is that people have this black and white view of their food and restaurants, when it can't always be like that for those busting ass to make it for them. A second time trying a place out isn't the worst thing in the world. It sucks again, so what? You aren't giving up a kidney, and is an hour of a random evening that important? If it turns out great, you may find a new favorite spot, you never know.

I sure am! And Cleaver is real cool - I actually talked to the guys over at cleaver a few months ago, helping them find some places around Boston to distribute. Porter square books should have just picked them up. That's the only place in New england actually you can snag it, other than ordering. If people like lucky peach though, it's actually very similar in art style and how it's put together - just all Chinese oriented. I found it online last year, and ordered it on a whim, loved it.

Used to get a lot of those older ones, but these days they just don't have the substance to hold up for me. Just recipes for the most part aren't enough for me anymore, I liked to be engaged with different things. I just get the newer, and I guess more interesting ones - Lucky Peach I've been getting since the beginning, and now I'm getting a new one called Cleaver as well, which is essentially like lucky peach, but just Chinese related things. Really fun mag, actually like it more than lucky peach to be honest, but it's really new, and only on it's 3rd issue I think, so very early on, and hard to find in the US (It's in english though). I get Plate, but that's only because they mentioned me in a few, and it's free. It's not bad actually - has some cool stuff, just a little closer to the old ones in terms of layout and substance. Don't think I'd get it if it wasn't free. The old guard just aren't interesting enough these days.

My opinion? I mean, I guess it happens, but honestly - my entire career I've never done it, nor seen it happen, so I wouldn't be too worried about it. I think posting a few videos from youtube about it is the equivalent of telling someone that if they step outside they'll have to worry about getting hit by lightning, then showing a few videos off of youtube about it - sure, it's happened, but chances? Also, it just seems to me that in most cases it's fast food places that seems to be doing this - I think a lot of us around here are more professional kitchen oriented? I think for those of us who consider this a career, or who take things seriously, would never actually do it, despite whatever joking around there may be. Bored Mcpatty flipper? Who knows? I really wouldn't worry about it, and unless you eat all the time at burger king or a subway, most probably shouldn't either.

First, I think calling what I'm selling as a 'Special' on the same level as something called 'Clearance', is the culinary equivalent of calling my mom a streetwalker? lol I don't know where people eat where anything what kitchen specials is that close to being spoiled, but any decent place wouldn't be doing that. If it's still ok, technically speaking, it goes to family meal like pastrygirl said - or on the waste log if it's borderline. Let alone getting a paying guest sick, have you ever tried to pass off 'Sorta alright' chicken as something delicious? No amount of salt covers that up. Do people run specials of food maybe re-purposed from other things? Sure. Doesn't mean they aren't so fresh, or of great quality. I think too many shitty chains and bad restaurant movies gave a lot of people the wrong impression. Most places put more effort into specials than menu items because, well, they're different. And special. Bottom line unless you're eating at that place from the movie 'Waiting', you really shouldn't be worrying about what is being served on the specials list - nothing should need any special naming or requirements. And if you are, I think the more important thing to be doing is questioning your dining choices.

Haven't had much time to eat lately, so we've just been relying on a big batch of pizza dough I made and froze - quick and easy dinner on the days we both have off and have no real desire to cook. This one was 3 cheese, bread and butter pickles, gochujang, greens, poppy and sesames seeds. Like a giant sandwich. But better, because it was pizza.

Literally been years I think since I've posted to a dinner thread, but no time like the present, right? Wife and I have been on a pizza kick lately, so we pumped one out before she went into work tonight. Pizza with buttermilk braised potatoes, doenjang and maple, radish greens, mozzarella, black sesame. Sweet and funky.

Most people I know all do it differently - some people do a % of the total, some have done host chefs pay, I've known others to just charge based on what they are worth per hour and how much time it will take them, I know others that just do a flat rate and call it a day - guess I'm bad at answering haha Honestly though, I've done stuff like that, and for me the simplest was just choosing a flat rate, just something that sounded good based on how much I felt I was worth. I't's not a super technical answer by any means, but it's the easiest in case the odd event someone tries some funny business with % and how much they 'actually' made, etc. At the end of the day, just charge what you feel you're worth - you're doing half the work, it's your name, it's your effort. Don't be afraid to ask a decent number if you're actually worth that number. Sorry it's not an exact answer, too many people I know do it differently.