Are cooks underpaid?

[Peter B Wolf]

I also swerved away from the topic.

I apologize.

[Lisa1349]

it might be important to acknowledge that a lot of "white collar" salaried employees in all types of businesses work much more than 40 hours a week

If the salary is $25k, is it white collar?

FG: I think that something else you're looking for is: the beyond resonable amount of stress placed on a cook to perform.

Here's a typical progression for a cook:

1. Crap job in crap place.

2. Better job in crap place.

3. Crap job in good place (vegetable cleaner, salad plater).

4. "Better" job in good place - cook.

It is here where the drama begins. Where chefs scream at you 2 inches from your face while you're skin is peeling off on a skillet that holds the best venison you ever cooked but he found something wrong with it. Events like this cause you to drink, or worse, and you are aged 2x faster than normal. You know what day it is only by what the special is and you've lost contact with anyone outside the biz. If you're married, it's in shambles, if you have a significant other, they're gone. It is this step with which I gripe. I'm not saying special labor laws should apply here, just enforce the ones we have now. Someone said you're not allowed to work 60 hours a week. It was a minimum for me for almost 3 years. If I didn't do it, they'd find some one who would. If I was compensated properly, I wouldn't have been making just above minimun wage. I did have health coverage, and a 401k that no money other than my own went into. These benefits still didn't make this worth it.

Sure, I could've gotten out, and found other work in less than 3 hours. This is the price paid for 3 stars. It was a paradise compared to the 4 star places. I also don't care to work at TGI Friday's.

5. Great job in crap place. Someone once said to me, "You get over things having to be all about the food. Then you go where the money is." Smaller, less expensive restaurants have to pay chefs more to keep them.

I know everyone thinks they're not paid what they're worth, and no one will ever be. What I don't know about is if people are aware of the vagrancies of labor standards in the business.

A huge gripe about Bloomberg's smoking ban: he said he was doing it out of concern for restaurant employees. If he had real concern, he'd make sure labor laws were enforced. He'd make sure people didn't work 12 hours with no break. It's coincidental that people in the business of feedng people, rarely have time to feed themselves.

AND NYT reviews aren't always anonymous to restaurants. They share Grimes' picture from video surveilance in establishments and names he uses for reservations and credit cards. You can be surely positive he's treated better than average Joe.

Lisa

[tommy]

it might be important to acknowledge that a lot of "white collar" salaried employees in all types of businesses work much more than 40 hours a week

If the salary is $25k, is it white collar?

i don't think salary is a good indication of whether a job is white collar or not. however, i should have more correctly used "9 to 5" instead of "white collar." i misspoke.

[snoop]

I make $10 an hour in a well known 3 star restaurant. The highest salaried worker is getting $13. He has been cooking for 8 years and is amazing an amazing worker. The salaries are bad enough, but what is terrible is the total disregard for labor laws in the restaurant industry. You simply don't get paid for the hours you work. Your checks are always short. This happens in every single high end restaurant in the city, and every cook knows it. I know someone who works in a certain tavern in the gramercy area whose checks are at least 10 hours short every single week.

[tan319]

I make $10 an hour in a well known 3 star restaurant. The highest salaried worker is getting $13. He has been cooking for 8 years and is amazing an amazing worker.  The salaries are bad enough, but what is terrible is the total disregard for labor laws in the restaurant industry.  You simply don't get paid for the hours you work. Your checks are always short. This happens in every single high end restaurant in the city, and every cook knows it.  I know someone who works in a certain tavern in the gramercy area whose checks are at least 10 hours short every single week.

That blows!!!

I have to say that when I worked in NYC(in 2000), I started out at $8.00 an hour to open then after 3 months they knocked me up to $10.00 an hour. I was always paid for the hours I worked. And after 3 months we could have health insurance, I think it was Oxford, can't quite remember.

I think the employers have gotten a bit more 'inventive' since 9/11/ the economy starting to crash.

[Rael64]

in any career. You need to either go to college and pay the top dollar so you can start at a higher wage or you need to suck it up and work hard for many, many years in the kitchen until you have earned your ?degree? and have can physically show a reason to be paid well.

This above is one of the problems as I see it: cooks "earning" that "degree" cannot live on the wages paid, particularly if it is for "many many" years. Simply put, and with things such as location, cost of living, etc. notwithstanding, if a new cook cannot make a reasonable living on his/her pay, how does anyone expect to train and keep good cooks? What you do get are those who spend the cash to attend a culinary (often "culinary", i.e. questionable training) schools who then upon graduation refuse to be - or more often become those Disgruntled Cooks (that need firing) - line cooks because the pay is a whopping 2 bucks more, maybe, than the "unschooled" line cook. Many "schooled" cooks have developed an attitude that they are somehow trained when all they have in fact is some "book learning". Toss a "school cook" behind the line on a Friday night as a saute dog and watch a Learned Cook melt into a puddle of goo.

I generalize, mind you, but the point of this far too long rant is: beginning pay for a cook (or any profession, actually) must be realistic. Min. wage in the US, for example, is quite UNrealistic. It's shameful, actually. Would it shake up the economy if fed. min. wage was bumped up to 10/hour? Sure would, but it would all be for the best, I think. An argumentative idea indeed, sure.

As for the bennies, I would wager that if the US had universal health care (big ugly rant in and of itself), restaurants would have far less "complaining" about low pay because one could actually *go* to a doctor when one was sick and not have to worry about working 10 hours overtime to pay the extortionist doctors.

Complicated issue(s) though in general.

Peace...

Rael

[Chef Fowke]

in any career. You need to either go to college and pay the top dollar so you can start at a higher wage or you need to suck it up and work hard for many, many years in the kitchen until you have earned your ?degree? and have can physically show a reason to be paid well.

This above is one of the problems as I see it: cooks "earning" that "degree" cannot live on the wages paid, particularly if it is for "many many" years. Simply put, and with things such as location, cost of living, etc. notwithstanding, if a new cook cannot make a reasonable living on his/her pay, how does anyone expect to train and keep good cooks?

Both my wife and I went to university, lived below the poverty line for four years and ate Kraft dinner every night. The fact that I became a Chef, friends became doctors and lawyers and my wife a professional student has nothing to do with being white collar or blue collar. The fact is you have to pay your dues and learn your trade/profession/career. There is no easy way of doing it.

Yet, school is not the only way to become a Chef. It helps. It sets the standards in recipes/cooking techniques and gives the cook an understanding of the nomenclature. If you come into a restaurant without experience expect to be paid poorly and expect to work hard to learn your craft to catch up to the cooks who took the time and effort to go to school (am I the only person here who remembers Escoffier and what he did for the cooking industry?).

And money should not be the most important aspect in accepting a new job in the hospitality field. You need to invest in the future through your resume. For every one executive chef there are hundreds of cooks. The odds are poor that you are going to make it to any serious money. That is reality and there is no reason to cry over it. Work hard in creating your own opportunities. Sometimes it takes more then a big pay cheque.

[tan319]

Raising the minimum wage is long overdue . I look at the classifieds and see how many gigs are offered at 6 - 7 dollars an hour and you know how many people are going to be working 2 jobs at that rate.

As for the bennies, I would wager that if the US had universal health care (big ugly rant in and of itself), restaurants would have far less "complaining" about low pay because one could actually *go* to a doctor when one was sick and not have to worry about working 10 hours overtime to pay the extortionist doctors.

Love that one. too bad it's not going to happen in my lifetime, if ever!

[Peter B Wolf]

........If you come into a restaurant without experience expect to be paid poorly and expect to work hard to learn your craft to catch up to the cooks who took the time and effort to go to school (am I the only person here who remembers Escoffier and what he did for the cooking industry?).

And money should not be the most important aspect in accepting a new job in the hospitality field. You need to invest in the future through your resume. For every one executive chef there are hundreds of cooks. The odds are poor that you are going to make it to any serious money. That is reality and there is no reason to cry over it. Work hard in creating your own opportunities. Sometimes it takes more then a big pay cheque.

Chef Fowke, No, you are not the only one here who remembers Escoffier. But I do not think neither one of us knew him personally, although I am surely a bit older than you.

I agree with your whole post.

Must say you were lucky to have a University education. I don't, neither did I ever go to highschool, and still made it and retired, not rich but comfortable.

Yes 60 hour weeks, and that in split-shifts at the beginning were the norm.

Or working on a decrepid 1905 Ocean Liner, cooking for 1200 passengers (emmigrants to Canada), working on oil-fired stoves with 4inch plates that warped after each Atlantic crossing. Sleeping with 5 other young cook commies in a cabin 6X12 feet. Guess what, I loved it!

Hey guys out there, read this again what Chef Fowke has to say:

"That is reality and there is no reason to cry over it. Work hard in creating your own opportunities. Sometimes it takes more then a big pay cheque."

And start "LOVING" to cook!! Rewards will be there.

[Chef Fowke]

Yes, thank you Peter B Wolf! Please share more of your experiences! That’s what this post should be about. Proof that Pay + Satisfaction = hard work = good lifestyle. Nothing is free/there are no free rides. Create your own economy and do not complain if you do not get what you expected; work harder! The restaurant business is pure, clean and beautiful capitalism.

[snoop]

pure, clean, beautiful? I guess no one wants to discuss the rampant disregard for the laws and complete dishonesty involved in labor issues. It's absolutely disgusting to me that this goes on.

[Chef Fowke]

pure, clean, beautiful?  I guess no one wants to discuss the rampant disregard for the laws and complete dishonesty involved in labor issues. It's absolutely disgusting to me that this goes on.

I cannot argue with your personal experience. You seem very passionate about your words and I would appreciate to hear more about them. I worked through some hard times and long hours and there was always a payout at the end. Please be more specific, my head may be in the sand on this issue.

[Jonathan Day]

I don't think it's off-topic to ask what the financial upside for a skilled chef might be.

If that line cook who starts at US$8/hour learns and advances, ending up as the most senior chef in a major New York restaurant, how much might she earn? I'm not talking about chef-owners (e.g. Daniel Boulud) or media/celebrity chefs but the top salaried chefs in highly respected restaurants.

My impression is that a top chef with a good reputation has substantial ($100k+) earning potential, opportunities to demand an ownership stake in a restaurant, and the like, health benefits and the like. Or is this incorrect?

Isn't the pattern here a bit like acting? Lots of people willing to enter the profession at minimum wage; a few at the top who make a lot of money.

I guess one difference between the line cook and the top chef in the house is that the latter is doing at least as much management as she is cooking.

[chuck]

Underpaid? Oh, no, no, don't worry about us. We're okay. We'll get by...

[Fat Guy]

My impression is that a top chef with a good reputation has substantial ($100k+) earning potential, opportunities to demand an ownership stake in a restaurant, and the like, health benefits and the like.  Or is this incorrect?

In New York, at a top restaurant, it's quite possible for the executive chef to make substantially more than $100k and for the chef-de-cuisine to make close to $100k (I know at least three people in the number two slot at good restaurants who are in the $80-$90k range). A real heavy hitter in a well-financed restaurant could potentially be in the quarter-million range, though there are only a handful of positions at that level (for example, Christian Delouvrier at Lespinasse was probably earning at that level, and he is not what I'd call a celebrity chef). The serious money positions are, of course, with hotels, restaurant-groups, and large corporations. David Burke, also in my opinion a non-celebrity chef, surely earned a ton as the chef-overseer for so many of the Smith & Wollensky Group's projects.

In addition, there are quite a few safe, stable, good-hours, good-paying jobs for experienced chefs with good managerial abilities. Those jobs just tend not to be in restaurants -- they are more likely to be in the food-service industry at large. I don't know the actual percentages, but it's worth noting that a large percentage of trained chefs ultimately wind up working in non-restaurant food-service positions.

I'm not talking about chef-owners (e.g. Daniel Boulud) or media/celebrity chefs but the top salaried chefs in highly respected restaurants.

I see no reason to disregard that component of the upside, though. Clearly, both the possibility of ownership and the possibility of stardom are responsible for attracting a large number of people to the business. And there the earning potential reaches into the millions, and the job descriptions are quite diverse.

[Chef Fowke]

Underpaid?  Oh, no, no, don't worry about us.  We're okay.  We'll get by...

Please share some of your personal experiences. It is hard continue this thread with unsubstantiated sarcasm. I am really interested in hearing what other people/cooks think about this. I explained my beliefs and experiences to help develop dialogue on this topic.

[Jonathan Day]

I'm not talking about chef-owners (e.g. Daniel Boulud) or media/celebrity chefs but the top salaried chefs in highly respected restaurants.

I see no reason to disregard that component of the upside, though. Clearly, both the possibility of ownership and the possibility of stardom are responsible for attracting a large number of people to the business. And there the earning potential reaches into the millions, and the job descriptions are quite diverse.

I wasn't disregarding the ownership or celebrity elements of the upside, just separating them from the salaried component. An ownership position involves the cook accepting a degree of risk that some may be unwilling or unable to bear. It takes us out of the realm of labour economics and employment practices.

As FG says, celebrity and media "chefs" can make millions, especially if they get into a lucrative deal with a food manufacturer or retailer (Lloyd Grossman with his bottled sauces, Jamie Oliver with Sainbury's, etc.). However, in these case I would argue that the bulk of the reward is for acting skills, photogenic appearance, and just plain luck -- as opposed to culinary skill.

I see no reason, in concept at least, why a media producer couldn't take an attractive actor and turn her/him into a "celebrity chef" -- with the backstage assistance of a real chef, some prep cooks and a bit of coaching in on-screen cooking skills. You could even film someone else's hands chopping that onion. Wasn't something like this once done with TV rock/pop bands, where the "stars" weren't actually singing?

[Fat Guy]

I wasn't disregarding the ownership or celebrity elements of the upside, just separating them from the salaried component. An ownership position involves the cook accepting a degree of risk that some may be unwilling or unable to bear.  It takes us out of the realm of labour economics and employment practices.

It's hard to separate the labor issues, though, because ownership and celebrity exist as possibilities and incentives that allow restaurants to pay lower entry-level wages. Ownership in particular -- "having your own place" -- has always been the number-one fantasy of aspiring chefs, so for people with that aspiration a line-cook job is an educational "expense," not a real salaried position. If you talk to the line cooks at any restaurant above the middle-market level, you will find that many if not most of them think they're working towards ownership (even though they have about as much chance of success as the average law-firm first-year associate has of making partner). Likewise, "I want to be like Emeril" has rapidly taken on a similar kind of brass-ring position. Having so many aspiring owners and Emeril wannabes in the labor pool means that the hypothetical career line-cook has to accept the lower earning standard as well. Where an industry can benefit from a "paying your dues" labor model, it can get much cheaper labor than it otherwise could.

[Peter B Wolf]

Steven, I agree, and my input to your statement (follows below it)

"................-- "having your own place" -- has always been the number-one fantasy of aspiring chefs, so for people with that aspiration a line-cook job is an educational "expense," not a real salaried position. If you talk to the line cooks at any restaurant above the middle-market level, you will find that many if not most of them think they're working towards ownership (even though they have about as much chance of success as the average law-firm first-year associate has of making partner)....."

...'even though they have about as much chance of success'....

And I agree with that.

I am past that stage, and also had no success. Reason, my dreams were set too high. I only wanted a particular type/kind of place of my own, and cook and serve only what I thought was what people wanted, or rather what "I" wanted. Two of the biggest set-backs with this type of thinking were, no initial personal Capital to build from scratch a freestanding establishment and furnishing it. No sponsor/ investor nor lender was interested in my concept, plus I would not budge to my concept. I never ever wanted to take over an established place, 'I was too good for it'. And, maybe 'stuck' in a geografical location for some stupid personal reason(s). Women, Wine and Song.

And to be really honest? I am not that great a cook/chef or at least do/did not have enough self confidence.

I still made out, cooked/chefed for over 48 years, am happy, and would do it all over again.

[fresco]

'Likewise, "I want to be like Emeril" has rapidly taken on a similar kind of brass-ring position. Having so many aspiring owners and Emeril wannabes in the labor pool means that the hypothetical career line-cook has to accept the lower earning standard as well.'

So in addition to being Food and Wine's favorite stud muffin, Emeril, by helping to depress kitchen wages and presumably, keep a lid on restaurant tabs, is the consumer's best friend. Tony Bourdain, eat your heart out.

[paul o' vendange]

I see no reason, in concept at least, why a media producer couldn't take an attractive actor and turn her/him into a "celebrity chef"

Nigella Lawson?

[Jonathan Day]

Ownership in particular -- "having your own place" -- has always been the number-one fantasy of aspiring chefs, so for people with that aspiration a line-cook job is an educational "expense," not a real salaried position. If you talk to the line cooks at any restaurant above the middle-market level, you will find that many if not most of them think they're working towards ownership (even though they have about as much chance of success as the average law-firm first-year associate has of making partner).

This makes good sense.

Do we know anything about the likelihood of a chef being able to attract outside capital for a start-up? In other words, what kind of experience do "restaurant angel investors", if they exist, look for in financing a chef in a new venture? What does it take to move from top salaried chef to chef-owner?

The analogy with lawyers is apropros, because you can get internal financing for a new startup (where a chef-owner finances one of his star salaried chefs in a new venture, as Gordon Ramsay did with Marcus Wareing) or external financing, where a salaried chef jumps ship and starts a new place.

Is there any data available on how often these moves happen, and on what terms? In a large metropolitan law firm the likelihood that an entering associate will become an equity (senior) partner is something like 1:12 or 1:15, right? Do we know what the probabilities are for a new line cook becoming a chef-owner?

(I am guessing that no such data has been assembled, but it never hurts to ask).

[Fat Guy]

1:18 is the current estimate at top NYC law firms, according to New York Lawyer January 2003.

[slkinsey]

FG, is that 1:18 for equity partners or just for regular partners? Because, in my day-job experience at law firms, there seem to be plenty of non-equity partners that make huge bucks.

[inventolux]

Ownership in particular -- "having your own place" -- has always been the number-one fantasy of aspiring chefs, so for people with that aspiration a line-cook job is an educational "expense," not a real salaried position. If you talk to the line cooks at any restaurant above the middle-market level, you will find that many if not most of them think they're working towards ownership (even though they have about as much chance of success as the average law-firm first-year associate has of making partner).

This makes good sense.

Do we know anything about the likelihood of a chef being able to attract outside capital for a start-up? In other words, what kind of experience do "restaurant angel investors", if they exist, look for in financing a chef in a new venture? What does it take to move from top salaried chef to chef-owner?

The analogy with lawyers is apropros, because you can get internal financing for a new startup (where a chef-owner finances one of his star salaried chefs in a new venture, as Gordon Ramsay did with Marcus Wareing) or external financing, where a salaried chef jumps ship and starts a new place.

Is there any data available on how often these moves happen, and on what terms? In a large metropolitan law firm the likelihood that an entering associate will become an equity (senior) partner is something like 1:12 or 1:15, right? Do we know what the probabilities are for a new line cook becoming a chef-owner?

(I am guessing that no such data has been assembled, but it never hurts to ask).

Hard work and crafty salesmanship. If a culinary leader wants to lure investors, he has to sell himself. There is no across the board criteria investors have for a restaurant team leader. However the best investors are in it for the passion and arent afraid to spend what it takes to obtain the best team possible. On the flipside, the best leaders arent looking for the top salaried positions or they would be seeking employment for a large corporation like aramark. So the two go hand in hand.

I dont believe in trying to achieve a "top salaried" position. That goal would be a conflict of my goals to create a great restaurant. I believe if you love what you do, money shouldnt be a large factor of the overall picture. That goes along with being hospitable, in the most hospitable restaurants, the costs are higher, the profit is smaller, the internal reward is much greater.

If a culinary leader wants to run and own his/her own restaurant then only they will know when they are ready. The only thing standing in their way is confidence. One reason why a line cook may not open his/her own restaurant is because of a lack of a "management title". But thats all it is really, a title. That title wont make any difference once they are in charge.

To answer the question are cooks underpaid......absolutely, without a doubt, totally underpaid. Sometimes for good reason, although usually not.

Edited July 13, 2003 by inventolux (log)