Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

My little brother is a bartender at a local bar and came back from a long shift with a complaint about a couple of fellow bartenders and I thought I would share it with Dakka and get your opinions.

Two of the bartenders who work at this bar are apparently lazy and pretty weak. Working the swing shift my little brother's primary job after 8pm is to give the two "Closing" bartenders a dinner break. Apparently both these bartenders thought its fair to take an hour dinner break and when they came back demanded my little brother basically do all the cleaning and restocking before they were going to let him leave for the night.

The restocking makes a bit of sense since both of these bartenders are physically to weak to lift the 60lbs kegs and put them in place. The cleaning though kinda bugged me, they argued that they couldn't even lift the trash bags out of the cans to throw away themselves.

So the question here becomes, should these two bartenders be entitled to the same pay as my little brother, even though neither of them is capable of performing the tasks required by the job? Tips I can understand splitting equally but the pay is my main question. What are you guys thoughts?

Thats not the question. The question is, who is in charge and are the other two bartenders over your brother.

I just had to ask him because I didn't know, the answer is theirs no "head" bartender and all the bartenders are equal as far as position. They do have a manager on who works the front side of the house so he was in charge.

Now I don't know bar culture. Absent specific bar culture he should do what his job entails and his boss directs. Unless the other bartenders are his boss, then they can't direct him, only his boss can.

Sounds like they are loafing. If they can't do their job requirements they should be terminated, or alternately...fired.

Yeah I think it's more, if they aren't doing their job properly, they shouldn't have the job; as opposed to being payed less. I imagine things would be complicated if there was like a pay scale for how much effort you put in.

He should tell them he only takes orders from his boss.

It's a difficult position to be in, alright. Sometimes, the boss doesn't want the hassle of dealing with minor laziness or incompetence, so other staff members have to pick up the slack. Sucks that they seem to have decided to kinda gang up on your brother.

I see it all the time in my work as a teacher- people half assing planning documents or claiming they can't get them done, taking days off for hangovers and leaving others to cover their lessons for them, just generally not pulling their weight and then others have to do support classes for kids that are failing. It's very irritating. I haven't found a solution for it to be honest- the trouble being, if you fire someone, what's the chance of getting a better person in? They could easily be worse.

Is your brother a bartender or a barback? Usually barbacks do all that work. If there is a place which doesn't have a dedicated barback, then bartenders do it, and I am sure 'gak rolls down hill' so the one with least seniority probably has it fall to them. In professional bars (the places with like 3-5 bartenders at a time) they don't have time and simply don't do the cleaning or the prep. That is barback's duties.

If the boss is 'ok' with it, then so be it. If the manager allows 'gak to roll down hill' that is how he runs his shop.

No, not a barback hes a full bartender and the shift he was working was 3 bartenders on with one getting cut early. So just to put it back in perspective, these two bartenders are physically incapable of lifting a keg, they are physically incapable of lifting a full garbage bag and yet both were hired into this position even though they can not fulfill the basic requirements of the job itself.

SIDE NOTE: Neither bartender has a physical disability that precludes them from lifting, they are just not strong enough.

He should find a better place.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
No, not a barback hes a full bartender and the shift he was working was 3 bartenders on with one getting cut early. So just to put it back in perspective, these two bartenders are physically incapable of lifting a keg, they are physically incapable of lifting a full garbage bag and yet both were hired into this position even though they can not fulfill the basic requirements of the job itself.

SIDE NOTE: Neither bartender has a physical disability that precludes them from lifting, they are just not strong enough.

Do they have Seniority on him? In that situation, the least senior bartender becomes the defacto bar-back, especially during slow times.

Focusing on the 'you can't lift it!' is missing the issue. If the job didn't say it in the hiring requirements, it would be potential discrimination. That is for the manager to sort out, not an employee to his peers. It is very possible they could be physically capable and just don't do it because they would rather be bartending not barbacking and let the least sr, least 'monopolized' person do it.

And that is a very valid management choice potentially. So take it up with management, if you take it out on your peers directly, you wend up like Frank grimes from the Simpsons.

Every time I've worked in any food service type place, be it fast food or a proper restaurant (and I have done both) it's always been the policy to, one, clean up your area before you leave, and two, make sure that things are stocked for the next shift.

Maybe it's not everywhere, but everywhere I've been.

 daedalus wrote:
Every time I've worked in any food service type place, be it fast food or a proper restaurant (and I have done both) it's always been the policy to, one, clean up your area before you leave, and two, make sure that things are stocked for the next shift.

Maybe it's not everywhere, but everywhere I've been.

Which means swing shift cleans up when they leave, night people clean up at close.

Sounds working as intended.

No disagreement here.

If he's concerned the first thing to do is read his own contract

what are his duties, how long should his break(s) be, etc

an hours lunch would not be unusual in the UK, but neither would a business contractually promising it but then hiring too few staff for everybody to get it

It could be he's actually choosing to go above and beyond what he's contacted to do (either because that's the sort of person he is, or because he's looking to impess in hopes of promoting etc) which is fair enough, but he shouldn't expect others to do so

if he's willing to rock the boat he should approach his boss with something along the lines of 'I don't know the details of Mr X and Mr Y's contracts, but if they are the same as mine they are ripping you off by....(insert work they're not doing, extra break time etc)

then leave it up to his boss to deal with them (or not) and if nothing happens and it winds him up to much he needs to find another job (getting into things directly with them is pretty much pointless)

Anytime a couple co-workers are ready to point out what my job will be: they are already wrong.
We can agree to find ways to help each other but some basic sharing needs to take place.
If one person is the "only" one who can do a given job, other people should be covering in other ways to make up for it.

Many times people hope you do what you are told and it is a win for them.

#1 rule is complete what are your duties according to your contract or what your boss has told you.
#2 help co-workers when they are in a bind as long as it does not conflict with rule #1 because it only makes sense for a reasonable work environment.
#3 if co-workers increasingly make requests, pretending to have a hearing problem or work harder at your duties is the best way to go.
#4 consider helping with the "common" duties carefully, you may set a precedence of being required to do the work when it was someone else's sole job.

This all sounds rather harsh but after a while you can tell when people will pull their own weight or those who are most comfortable with giving orders and watching.

There has not been a single time I have benefitted when covering for someone else ahead of my responsibilities, actually it gave ammo for being deemed: "not getting things done" come time for evaluation.

I had a boss last summer when asked about an employee who is the worse worker ever she said "Its alot easier to keep them until they get bored and leave, they dont stay long. I would have to train a new one and pay her while I train."

He is actually the 2nd most senior there (including the other bartenders who weren't on that day). The Job description actually lists jobs such as restocking and managing kegs and cleaning. I was just wondering why a person would hire two people incapable of doing the job listed in the actual contract

 Ghazkuul wrote:
He is actually the 2nd most senior there (including the other bartenders who weren't on that day). The Job description actually lists jobs such as restocking and managing kegs and cleaning. I was just wondering why a person would hire two people incapable of doing the job listed in the actual contract

Sometimes employers have other hiring criteria other than the ability to do the job.

Bar tending would have a few considerations:
Mixing knowledge.
Personable.
Good looks.
Remembers names.
Knows when to keep quiet.
Friend of the boss or a friend of a friend or distant relative.
There can be a multitude of considerations few would be aware of.

The boss thinks they are worth the pay for some reason: no-one likes to throw away money so more may be going on.

I believe the worker is worthy of his hire. Unless the other bartenders are performing other valuable duties in place of the physical duties, they should in no way be paid as much. More work, more pay: it should be demonstrable though.

You have to be careful with this kind of thinking. I've never met a person who thought they only doing their fair share of the work - everyone thinks they're carrying the load. Your brother may actually be doing more than the others, or he might be missing what extra work they are doing.

If your brother really, honestly believes he's getting a hard deal, then the next question is whether the advantages of the job outweigh other the issues, or if he should look for another one. Everything else, about whether other staff should have been hired or not, that's all just drama any worrying about it will only make your brother and possibly you miserable.

 Ghazkuul wrote:


The restocking makes a bit of sense since both of these bartenders are physically to weak to lift the 60lbs kegs and put them in place. The cleaning though kinda bugged me, they argued that they couldn't even lift the trash bags out of the cans to throw away themselves.

I've never worked a bar in my life... But my extensive time in the military says that if you are doing shift work of any kind, YOU clean up your shift's stuff. ie, if your brother is a middle shift bar tender, the tender that he relives should remove the trash bags that he/she has accumulated, just as he, in turn should remove the trash prior to his leaving for the third shift crew.

Fair or no, I'd suck it up and get the work done as long as the manager knows I'm doing it and I'm getting paid for the time I work. If he's having to do this after his shift is meant to end and isn't being paid for it, that's an issue for the manager. If he's on the clock while all this is happening it's easier to just get it done and make sure the other two look bad. If they're splitting tips evenly and the other two are good at the rest of their work, he's not losing any money while he's taking out a few bags of trash.

As for what the others make, it's the manager's loss if they're proving to be a waste of their wages. Even if they started making less I doubt that your brother's wages would see a corresponding increase. Granted, I personally have little tolerance for anyone on my payroll standing around chatting or leaning on tools.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
No, not a barback hes a full bartender and the shift he was working was 3 bartenders on with one getting cut early. So just to put it back in perspective, these two bartenders are physically incapable of lifting a keg, they are physically incapable of lifting a full garbage bag and yet both were hired into this position even though they can not fulfill the basic requirements of the job itself.

SIDE NOTE: Neither bartender has a physical disability that precludes them from lifting, they are just not strong enough.

Is it because they're both hot chicks?

If it's because they're both hot chicks he needs to sack up.

If it's because they're both wussy guys, he should ridicule their weakness mercilessly and tell them to take a walk.

 Frazzled wrote:
He should find a better place.

I'm not sure going to heaven is the best option. I'd suggest getting a new job.

I don't know what the economy is like in the UK right now, but if it's anything like the US finding a new job can take a looooong time.

How can you be too weak to lift something less than 30kg? Especially when you are an adult you should easily be able to lift that. They are probably just extremely lazy.
Have them shot for dereliction of duty.

The Bar Manager isn't doing their job properly if they are letting this go on. Part of being the boss is ensuing everyone on the team is pulling their weight.