slkinsey
-
Posts
11,151 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by slkinsey
-
-
If I, as an employer, suspect that an employee might be doing drugs--either in the workplace--or in off hours (to the detriment of work performance), should I be permitted to demand a drug test? That's a lower threshold of evidence than even a cop or MI5. Meaning ANY employer could demand a drug test simply because, in their judgement they SUSPECT someone of using drugs. That's a lot of latitude to give a regional manager for Pret A Manger..
And could this power be abused? As in selective testing and interpretation of results? Yes. Yes it could.
Next comes the polygraph.
Definitely a good point. I suppose it is something to be worked out between the employer and the employee. I mean, as far as I know, a Chef could require an employee to take a drug test right now if performance-impacting drug use is suspected -- yes/no? Maybe not, now that I think about it. In any event, in terms of having a lower threshold of evidence than MI5 or the police, I would think that the threshold could be lower, given the fact that no one is going to jail based on the results of the test. I guess in my mind, I saw it more as something just between the Chef and the employee.
In a way, this is not terribly different from saying "I know you're doing drugs and it's impacting your work... I'm in your shit and if you fuck up again you're out." It's just going about it a different, although not necessarily better way. In one case you have the Chef using his own personal judgment, in the other you have the Chef using his own personal judgment along with a chemical test. I mean, you can fire the guy no matter what, right?
Giving it due consideration, however, I tend to agree with you that it would be too likely to be abused.
-
Should there be mandatory drug testing for everyone--or is it just okay with you guys for cooks and workers in heavy industry?
In my book, it's not OK to do across-the-board drug testing. But it does seem reasonable to me that an enmployer who has valid reasons to assume that an employee's work is suffering due to drug use may require that employee to take a drug test. And, if that employee is found to test valid for drugs, I think the employer may decide to periodically retest that individual and potentially terminate him/her given a reasonable number of subsequent positive tests. This comes down to more or less formalizing your "stern talking to" in a way that says "what do you want more... to work in my kitchen/office/orchestra/whatever or to smoke crack? You decide."
Is "trust" between employer and employee a vanishing concept?Unfortunately it is a vanishing concept on both sides of the question. Employers have less and less reason to trust their employees and employees sure as hell have less and less reason to trust their employers. Think of your own management experience. Do you keep track of every drop of booze, every steak, every pot and pan because you are not afraid that your workers will help themselves to freebees and walk off with things? Think of your employee experience. Do you check your paychecks against the work you performed because you don't think you might be getting screwed?
-
I would like to second what others have said about this being a very interesting thread with points well made by many. I have found it interesting also to read several people condemning certain substances while claiming that nothing is wrong with their drug of choice. I wonder what Spencer would think about toking on the job if he were not a pot smoker himself. On a different but related level, one wonders what Tony B would think about the negative effect of habitual tobacco smoking on one's ability to taste and smell effectively in the kitchen were he not a dedicated cigarette smoker.
I have tried a lot of different drugs over the years, coming close to having problems with a few and eventually becoming bored with most of them. The big problem that I have with most of the less-accepted drugs (marijuana, cocaine, LSD, etc.) as opposed to the more-accepted ones (alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, etc.) is that, in my experience, you can't "just have a little" of the less-accepted ones. You can have a cup of coffee, a cigarette, a drink of beer and still be more or less unimpaired. You might be a tiny bit more relaxed or awake, but nothing that you would describe as a noticably altered state of consciousness. On the other hand, you can't do a bowl of marijuana, a rock of crack, a hit of acid and not find yourself in a noticably altered state of consciousness. Indeed, if these drugs did not produce a noticably altered state of consciousness, people wouldn't take them. I always found it strange that some people think it's perfectly okay to smoke up some pot every day before work when these very same people would be concerned to learn that a friend was drinking to inebriation every day before work. I find it strange because these are fundamentally the same thing.
My experience is that people just don't tend to produce great art while under the influence of consciousness-altering drugs (and this would include alcohol when enough is consumed). Sometimes they produce the great art after experimenting with a consciousness-altering drug, and sometimes during lucid periods over a long period of habitual use... but almost never while under the influence of the drug. Largely what we get are monumental piles of shit that the artist thought were profound while on his/her drug of the moment. I have to wonder how this could fail to also be the case in the context of a high-level professional kitchen. I've been high plenty of times, and can't imagine exercising sound judgment and doing good work in that condition. It is also my general observation that most of the people who aren't bothered by working around people on a certain drug are those who also like to use that drug. This is echoed in Spencer's tolerance/acceptance/promotion of working on THC but not alcohol (I don't mean to single you out, Spencer, but you are the strongest advocate I've read here).
All this said, I am absolutely not anti-drug, and indeed I am strongly for the legalization of many drugs. Certainly there is no reason marijuana shouldn't be legal. But, to echo what I think was one of the best comments so far, it is a matter of controlling the quantities and the frequencies.
-
I wonder, in some ways, whether it is absolutely necessary that a chef needs to be a good cook, so long as he/she understands the workings of the professional kitchen, understands cooking, is a capable manager, can recognize well-cooked food, has good taste and has a good creative mind.
If you're a Chef, you are also a good cook. It's a requirement. You don't need to be a great cook, but you do need to be a good cook. Perhaps more importantly, you need to be an experienced and professional cook...
I tend to agree... I just thought it was an interesting digression to explore for people who were inclined to think about it beyond their initial knee-jerk reaction. More hypothetical than anything else. For whatever its worth, one generally has to be at least a good dancer to be a good choreographer as well. That said, many great choreographers were well beyond their best days as dancers when they did their best choreography, and I would agree that one need not be a great cook to be a great chef. Likewise, I would imagine that some chefs of long standing may lose their chops for working on the line. Your point about being an experienced and professional cook goes directly to my hypothetical requirements of "understands the workings of the professional kitchen" and "understands cooking." I did not mean to imply an underdstanding of these things from reading books.
-
I wonder, in some ways, whether it is absolutely necessary that a chef needs to be a good cook, so long as he/she understands the workings of the professional kitchen, understands cooking, is a capable manager, can recognize well-cooked food, has good taste and has a good creative mind. Does one have to be a good dancer in order to be a good choreographer?
Does a person have to be literate and coherent to be President?
To be a good one, yea.
-
So -- a chef is really just a middle manager who can cook? He manages the kitchen staff, but still reports up to the owner of the restaurant.
wow, if only I could cook, I could be a chef.
I wonder, in some ways, whether it is absolutely necessary that a chef needs to be a good cook, so long as he/she understands the workings of the professional kitchen, understands cooking, is a capable manager, can recognize well-cooked food, has good taste and has a good creative mind. Does one have to be a good dancer in order to be a good choreographer?
Certainly I think that one could be a great chef and a mediocre cook, and I can see where someone could understand intimately what a perfectly cooked piece of meat is without being able to produce it him/herself on a consistent basis. That's what cooking staffs are for.
Now, that said, I would imagine that most decent chefs are good cooks, or were good cooks at one time.
As a related side note... I remember seeing a "documentary" on young chefs that was produced back before Emeril Lagasse hit the big time. There was an interview with a woman who had hired him for one of his first big gigs down in New Orleans, and she said something to the effect that he had the reputation as a guy who couldn't cook but who really worked well with people, and that his kitchens turned out great food.
-
Do I just get a vat of butter and poach stuff in it? I've googled and can't find anything.
I googled and found this article with the Keller recipe.
-
You have to make a ___ _____...
beurre blanc?
-
...by all rights, "Cecilia" should be pronounced "kekilia" as those Cs were hard in ancient Latin.
Actually, it's "Che-Chelia", (shortened to "Che-Chi" which can be "Chickpea"or "wart", depending on where you are in Italy)...
I would agree if we were talking about modern Italian and not old Latin.
Well we must dig out those recordings of Cicero ("chickpea" or "wart" again).
Yea... I think I have a few old Cicero 78s lying around somewhere.
Seriously, though, the academic consensus (as opposed to Roman Catholic Church tradition) seems to be that Latin Cs are pronounced "k" and not "ch" as in modern Italian and RC Church Latin. But it seems we have traveled fairly off-topic with this tangent, so I'll say no more on it.
-
...by all rights, "Cecilia" should be pronounced "kekilia" as those Cs were hard in ancient Latin.
Actually, it's "Che-Chelia", (shortened to "Che-Chi" which can be "Chickpea"or "wart", depending on where you are in Italy)...
I would agree if we were talking about modern Italian and not old Latin.
-
I can say no such thing about the current total misunderstanding, in the U.S. anyway, as to the meaning (and pronounciation) of "bruschetta."
We all seem to get that the Italian "ch" is pronounced with a hard sound when we say "Chianti" - why is it so difficult to figure that out with bruschetta?
I believe it involves the same logic which means the word 'Celtic' is pronounced 'Seltic', instead of 'Keltic'.
Actually, AFAIK, "seltic" versus "keltic" is more or less a matter of preference, with "seltic" prevailing until relatively recently. Clickety.
Interesting link, I have long ago given up being critical of USA v UK english pronouciation (except for droppin the 'H' in 'Herb', that really does suck), language is dynamic and who is to say what is 'correct', especially if incorporated a foreign word. Anyway, Celtic come from 'Keltoi', so it should be prounouced with a hard 'C'.
I gather that "seltic" is actually a UK pronunciation, as it has been said that way in English for some 400 years. I would also consider that number of years sufficient for the word to be considered an English one and subject to regular English pronunciation customs apart from its roots in another language. As the author of the linked article points out, if we are going to go by the rule that the original Greek pronunciation means it has to be "keltic" then, by all rights, "Cecilia" should be pronounced "kekilia" as those Cs were hard in ancient Latin.
400 years from now, I will consider it sufficient to say that "brooshetuh" is a correct pronunciation as well.
In all seriousness, I wonder if that particular mistake is made because of the US's multi-ethic makeup and the fact that USAmericans have been more likely to see "sch" in the context of German words and pronounced as "sh" (as in "Schultz"). -
I can say no such thing about the current total misunderstanding, in the U.S. anyway, as to the meaning (and pronounciation) of "bruschetta."
We all seem to get that the Italian "ch" is pronounced with a hard sound when we say "Chianti" - why is it so difficult to figure that out with bruschetta?
I believe it involves the same logic which means the word 'Celtic' is pronounced 'Seltic', instead of 'Keltic'.
Actually, AFAIK, "seltic" versus "keltic" is more or less a matter of preference, with "seltic" prevailing until relatively recently. Clickety.
-
"Shrimp scampi" has become associated with a type of preparation, but you have to agree that was weird as scampi (prawns) may be prepared any number of ways. It may be commonly understood, but that doesn't exempt it from being considered a misuse.
only people who know what scampi means in italian know it is somehow "wrong" or funny. the rest of us just accept scampi (no italics, as it's an english word in this usage) as a preparation.
The "shrimp scampi" I can remember having in the UK many years ago were essentially breaded and deep fried shrimp.
Anyway... just because something is "commonly (mis)understood" as having a certain meaning doesn't mean that it isn't still misused. It just means that the misuse is commonly understood as having a certain meaning. To make a comparison, everyone knows what I am talking about if I say, "ATM machine" but it is still a misuse.
-
...no Buffalo in Buffalo wings...
Actually, that refers to the place of origin. Kind of like saying "Ali di pollo alla Buffalesa."
-
They're liquid at room temperature but are they oil? I thought all those things were olein. I guess I don't understand the difference between olein and shortening.
AFAIK, olein is any fat that is liquid at room temperature but becomes solid at around 0 centigrade. Shortening, in my understanding, is vegetable oils that have been hydrogenated so they are solid at room temperature.
-
as i'm sure you're all aware, "scampi" has become a name of a preparation consisting of oil/butter and garlic. i don't get to worked up over it, as it really doesn't confuse anyone.
Yea, okay... but that still doesn't mean it isn't stupid. And wrong.
Mmmmm... give me an extra helping of "squid seppia" please!
-
Shrimp Scampi = Shrimp Shrimp
Actually, a scampo is not exactly the same thing as a shrimp, which is called gambero, gamberetto, etc. Scampi are actually prawns of the "lobsterette" type, and not really related to shrimp.
So, really, "shrimp scampi" is even stupider. It's like saying, "shrimp langoustine" -- which I guess is kind of like saying "chicken pork."
-
We're vacationing in the mountains of North Carolina in late July, and our house is about a mile from an organic farm that has free range chickens and eggs. It is my goal to have meals like that nearly every day. Thanks for those memories.
Although I am an northeast big city type, both my parents are from the South and I spent every summer as a child at my Grandfather's house in the mountains outside Black Mountain, NC. I remember many such meals, and try to get back there as often as I can. Is there any better place in July? Not for me.
-
Let's get this straight, it's my maestro analogy -- just read the first post. SLkinsey just gussied it up a bit, that's all. And for the record, I was at a bar once, and Leonard Bernstein was there, and someone came up to him and said, "how ya doing, Maestro." So, in fact, maestros are called "maestro" off-the-clock.
Easy there Chief. If you want the credit, let it be known that you said the word "Maestro" first in this thread. As to your other comment see my earlier remarks to the effect of:
After a while some conductors attain such a level of respect/prominence/political influence that they are always referred to as "Maestro"...I would also say that conductors of long tenure with a certain body of musicians may be habitually referred to as "Maestro" by the people under their baton.
And, of course, as I pointed out before, you could have seen someone say "how ya doing, Maestro" to Luciano Pavarotti, but that doesn't mean that it was right.
-
I have always thought of the title "Chef" in the cooking world being kind of like the title "Maestro" in my profession.
In general, they are the titles from a classical tradition used in a professional setting to refer to the person in charge of the proceedings -- the person who has ultimate creative control and responsibility. In my experience, these titles are only "mandatory" while the person in charge is exercising his/her capacity as the person in charge. This is to say that I always refer to the conductor as "Maestro" while in rehearsals, but do not necessarily feel obligated to call him/her by that title outside of rehearsal. I would imagine that similar things are true for people in the professional kitchen.
While I don't think that the quality of the music or food impacts whether one deserves the title "Chef" or "Maestro," I do think it is important that the context in which it is used is within the parameters of the respective classical traditions and cultures. The leader of a rock band is not a "Maestro" -- neither is the manager of a Burritoville a "Chef."
After a while some conductors attain such a level of respect/prominence/political influence that they are always referred to as "Maestro" -- this is the case with Maestro Alberto Zedda, for instance. Historically, this has also been the case with composers (e.g., "Maestro Rossini"), but it was also commonplace in those days that composers conducted and/or otherwise supervised performances of their music. I assume that similar things are true for people in the restaurant profession. One may be referred to as a "Chef" or "Maestro" as a reference to one's usual job or as a token of respect for past/current accomplishments in that capacity.
It is also the case that people in the classical music business are often wrongly called "Maestro" by people who don't really know any better. It is never appropriate to say "Maestro Luciano Pavarotti." Furthermore, no one outside the context of professional classical music should be called "Maestro." One does not call an amateur pianist or guitarist "Maestro So-and-so." It is quite clear that similar misapplications happen with "Chef" on a regular basis as well. A home cook, no matter how accomplished or celebrated, is not a "Chef." Nothing pains me more than to have a well-meaning friend introduce me to someone in the food profession as "a great chef." Similar mistakes are consistently made with "diva" and "prima donna" but that is rather outside the scope of this comparison. I guess it has something to do with these terms entering the popular vocabulary. No one goes around wrongly calling people "Concertmaster" or "Garde Manger."
-
I can already see the recipes in a future NYT Food Section for dishes served "sur shingle."
-
Long-term, bottled water is an expensive and unnecessary habit for coffee-making -- not to mention I don't trust the bottled water companies. If the local tap water is so hard as to be a major problem, you just get Rancilio's $20 softener accessory and hook it to the water line. That plus a Brita and you'll be all set.
Don't softeners work using sodium? That can be a problem for some folks.
How does a water softener work? from HowStuffWorks.com.
-
And THAT was problematic enough to warrant a letter to the Times??? Geesh, Holly!!!!
Not exactly, I gather. Using my mind-reading abilities, I deduce that she isn't sufficiently compelled to actually post a letter, but might be in the mood to send a scathing email...
Holly is a girl. Holly is a girl. Nyah nyah.
D'oh!
Just goes to show I should pay more attention when typing.
Oh well... whenever I hear other people say, "Sam," they're usually talking to their dog...
-
And THAT was problematic enough to warrant a letter to the Times??? Geesh, Holly!!!!
Not exactly, I gather. Using my mind-reading abilities, I deduce that she isn't sufficiently compelled to actually post a letter, but might be in the mood to send a scathing email...
Gordon Ramsay demands drugs tests
in United Kingdom & Ireland: Dining
Posted
I hear the sales suffered mostly due to competition from "The Virtuosi of the Chamberlain" released by Oxford University Press at around the same time. Clearly nothing Simon could have foreseen.