(no subject)

[vicarz]

Oh this sucks: It turns out you are allowed to eat in Hooters and be reimbursed on official government travel. There is no way that should be the case. It's not like you went to Fridays and happened to have a cute waitress, it's a boob joint. Ew. Technically it's a restaurant, but it is one that is a) sleazy and b) is allowed for some reason to discriminate on the basis of gender in employment.

What if there was a restaurant called "White guys!?" They only hire white guys, where anyone can go and have white guys serve them food! Yay! It's blatant discrimination, cheesy and sleazy, but now you can spend federal taxpayer dollars eating there. Ick, ick I say.

Comments

[lilkender.livejournal.com]

In my opinion, Hooters is JUST a restaurant.
But the fact that they discriminate for employment is not a good thing. Unfortunately they hire "cute girls" rather than "good wait-persons".
Their food isn't great either. And I hate orange, and all the sports on TV there.

I worked at one company (not government) where employees on travel had an "entertainment" allowance, which they could spend at strip clubs if they wanted to! (I did some managers' expense reports).

[djpsyche.livejournal.com]

Not just "cute girls" but "busty girls".
Cute after all is open to interpretation...

[http://users.livejournal.com/_blackjack_/]

Yeah. I suspect I would not find the average Hooter's girl remotely attractive.

[kernelpanic.livejournal.com]

Last time I was at hooters, they had A: a mix of men and women waiting and B: not all of them were chosen on bust size alone.

Admittedly, Hooters isn't my choice of restaurants and I'm not a frequent diner there, so, my observations may be years out of date.

I think Hooters, overall, is more marketing than actual peep show, frankly. Hooters is only titilating in the US where we're so damn prudish that the rest of the world wonders if we get our gonads surgically removed at birth.

[cweaselle.livejournal.com]

I agree. Hooters is no big deal to any of my European friends. Plus, Hooters was sued by a man a few years ago because they didn't hire him and he won the case. For you guys, would you want to work at Hooters? I wouldn't and I'm a girl. I won't work at a Sports Bar either. If I was going to work somewhere where men were definately going to stare at me, I'd jsut hang it up and work at a strip club. They have waitresses there and they make alot more money.

[dnaspydir.livejournal.com]

Not to defend Hooters business practices, but per-diem is per-diem, is per-diem. You get X amount of money per day (diem) for expenses, what those expenses are is your business.

As far as whether or not Hooters ought to be able to have all female servers, who cares. All the servers at Archibald's are female... And what about places like the Playboy Club, or Ker's WingHouse (a growing establishment in Fl. that is similar to Hooters, so much so, that Hooters sued in 2003?

How about we (as a country) try something a little innovative, and stop boo-hooing over these places. The EEOC even dropped it years ago citing more important cases (or have I missed a new development?).

[vicar.livejournal.com]

They did drop it. Still, you're not allowed to spend taxpayer dollars in casinos and strip joints - so the hooters should be forbidden as well. They can exist all they want, and all the rednecks can get their wings, big tits, and beer all they like - just not with gummint money would be my choice.

[dnaspydir.livejournal.com]

I think with "per-diem" you can do what you want (no receipt required), it's with reimbursements (additional expenses) where it starts to become an issue. In other words, you will be reimbursed if you need to have dry cleaning done while on travel, but not to pay for a lap-dance.

[vicar.livejournal.com]

We mix them. In this, they used the card in Hooters as part of their per-diem. I review records of credit card use based on gummint travel.

[dnaspydir.livejournal.com]

As long as the expense is legit, what's the difference? Even if there were strippers, or gambling in the establishment, I still don't see a problem. Are places where there is gambling, or stripping expressly forbidden, or is it a matter of the expense charged? It's not like the gubmint tells people on travel where they can and can not eat... or has that changed?

[vicar.livejournal.com]

The difference is that this is a right-wing run country. You can do things on your off hours, and the per-diem can cover that - but then you can't use the card in strip joints or gambling areas. It's a little weird.

[dnaspydir.livejournal.com]

Fair enough, but if the receipt from Harrods says chicken, shrimp, iced tea +gratuity = $50 where's the problem? That would be a legit expense even though it's a casino. But, if I understand you, it can NOT be charged to the gubmint amex card just because the establishment is a casino. Is that what you are saying, or is it just the lap-dance (see earlier reply) that could not be charged to the card?

[vicar.livejournal.com]

You can't charge in a casino or a strip club for anything, I think. You also can't charge for a Nevada 'ranch' or a massage parlour with 'release.'

We have started to have the cards only accept certain merchant codes, but this has led to people being unable to pay bills in restaurants that are attached to dept. stores etc.

[oontzgrrl.livejournal.com]

What if you were at a convention in vegas and wanted to eat at the hotel which was also a casino?