Tomahawk repays employee loans with bonus

[wyliefan]

"I'm head chef/chief purchaser at a Middlesbrough restaurant and it's really not hard to achieve & maintain a 5 star level. It's all about training your staff and constantly keeping on at them at how important it is to keep the kitchen etc clean and tidy throughout every day and especially at closing down time."

Easy to say that when you've actually got staff. The company has been decimated with staff turnover since re-opening all premises last Summer, especially Head Chefs. You could say everyone is in the same boat, but when it comes to restaurant managements and local EHO's, there are definitely several boats. The culture within the company cannot be that terrible if the majority of sites all hold 5* hygiene status.

Not true. We're on minimal staff. Down to the bare bones. Struggling for staff all the time. We're doing 6 day weeks and between 50 and 65 hours a week. You have to put the work in and be committed - just like any job. Lack of staff doesn't constitute bad health and hygiene issues.

 

[ThatFragranceGuy]

I have friend who works in the food standards agency in London and she says places get every opportunity to fix problems before they are marked down, they have to have ignored several warnings and revisits. Tomahawk’s claim in the article that it was a one off paperwork failure sound a Stretch to me.

My friends wife is an inspector and he says its eye opening some of the things places can get away with and have a good rating, and a 1* rating is easily given for paperwork or lack of awareness f something if a new employee cant answer questions for example.

I don't think they have to fail twice - they will fail the on the spot inspection then I believe they can be recertified if they achieve a low score, but if that recertification achieves say a 2 or a 3, they cant be re-inspected for some time so have to live with the low score long term, so generally places with a reputation to uphold take immediate action which it seems like Tomahawk have done so.

Here is another example of another venue in york, also relating to documentation:

York private school requests re-inspection following disappointing food hygiene rating

A SCHOOL has requested a re-inspection of its kitchen after it was given a low hygiene rating.

www.yorkpress.co.uk

 

[FatFrank]

My friends wife is an inspector and he says its eye opening some of the things places can get away with and have a good rating, and a 1* rating is easily given for paperwork or lack of awareness f something if a new employee cant answer questions for example.

Nice to see someone posting a reasonable comment regarding a 1* rating.

Previously, I have been in a kitchen where an inspection was taking place. The inspector asked me how I was, looked at the contents of a counter-top fridge then spent 45 minutes in the restaurant drinking espresso with the owner. We achieved 5*.

Don't be so naïve to think that politics (or even bribing) cannot take a large part in some inspections.

 

[zzzzz]

Of wider concern to me and many in the Industry is the erosion of standards in school meals.

School meals staff like many of lower paid UK workers, and council employees in particualr have had negligible pay rises for a decade now.
The squeeze on staff numbers in catering outside school meals has increased wages and staff are leaving in droves leading to shortages and those responsbile for checking and maintaining standards and training have stopped doing Inspections and training and are covering in schools cooking instead.

Hygiene is one thing but allergy control is another. Sadly it's only a matter of time before some poor kid gets poisoned. I'd be terrified if I had a child at school at risk of getting something to eat they shouldn't.

 

[MolteniArcore]

The company has been decimated with staff turnover since re-opening all premises last Summer, especially Head Chefs.

Due to the way they appear to treat their staff this is not surprising.

 

[Andy_W]

I still have them firmly on the red list over the way they treated their staff. Also on there are Wetherspoons, Dyson and a couple of local places to me who had parties against lockdown rules.

They won't miss my trade but at least I'm not a hypocrite by slagging them off and then returning (not saying anyone is here btw).

At the time I didn't think taking a bit of a temporary pay cut (loan), to keep their jobs was as much of a big deal as some were making out, especially as a lot of the staff had been getting paid in full to not be at work for a lot of the year. For the owners to pay back the loan, very quickly and with a 20% bonus was overall a fair result for everyone I think.

I've been on the side of being fired, being made redundant from a low pay role, not being able to get a similar job and running a couple of businesses and I'd more than happily take a temporary pay cut/ loan over redundancy, especially in those circumstances, when other businesses were being closed. If I had been expected to work for the entire year, for less money, with other businesses and opportunities booming, then I would have looked at it differently and left.
Also, being a company owner I know how bad things can be when there's a short term cashflow problem, and usually wages are a companies main outgoing, but rent and finance payments never stop either.

I don't think it was ideal, far from it, but neither was the situation, but think the otherwise good businesses in that industry or any industry forced to close should have been supported much better by the government, especially if they had been paying large amounts of tax into the system. I think support should have been in line with tax/ PAYE paid in/ company size, rather than the blanket 10k handout or whatever it was, which is loads to a tiny company, and next to zero for a large one.

I think what Wetherspoons did was worse, and James Dyson is a d*ck.

 

[Randy]

I have friend who works in the food standards agency in London and she says places get every opportunity to fix problems before they are marked down, they have to have ignored several warnings and revisits. Tomahawk’s claim in the article that it was a one off paperwork failure sound a Stretch to me.

Correct.
The guys and gals who work for the Food Standards Agency aren't in the business of going around trying to shut people down, they'll give folks as much help and advice as possible.

 

[Andy_W]

Correct.
The guys and gals who work for the Food Standards Agency aren't in the business of going around trying to shut people down, they'll give folks as much help and advice as possible.

I'm not so sure, I bet this differs with each area/ inspector, and I bet it's a case of who you know (who you are) not what you know. I've zero experience of FSA inspections mind.

But, the reason I say it, is in my work (working on highways etc) some of the local councils which are meant to help can be an absolute nightmare, and yet go 50 miles down the road and they're the best ever. Some days one guy lets you get away with one little thing (which is clearly an oversight), yet the next day they come down on you like a ton of bricks for something even more trivial, or completely beyond control, people are weird and interpretation of standards varies by many.

It's interesting regarding the council too, as their standard of work and safety is shocking for highway works, compared to the people they're meant to be inspecting.

 

[Rofesleg]

Correct.
The guys and gals who work for the Food Standards Agency aren't in the business of going around trying to shut people down, they'll give folks as much help and advice as possible.

If a chef tries to be clever and/or hide things during the inspection, or has a bit of attitude, then they are likely to get marked down with little leniency.
If they are honest and respectful they will usually be given every chance to rectify.
In addition to being very good at his job, my chef was respectful and well liked. Our inspections were always fine.
Whereas I know of another restaurant that was 'targeted' because of the attitude of the owner.

 

[Randy]

If a chef tries to be clever and/or hide things during the inspection, or has a bit of attitude, then they are likely to get marked down with little leniency.
If they are honest and respectful they will usually be given every chance to rectify.

Spot on.
As you've said at the top of your post if you are been a doyle then of course they are going to think you have something to hide.

The easiest way to overcome any potential problems is to not have the problems in the first place. Keeping on top of cleaning and paperwork for example is easy with a scheduled cleaning system and paperwork filled out throughout the day. Doesn't matter how busy it is. As the old saying goes, if you've got time to lean you've got time to clean.

 

[JustTheGent]

These Tomahawk places never made sense to me. They were expanding when restaurants were not allowed to open. Why would a company to do that? They then inevitably ran out of money and wanted to borrow money off their staff

There's really no excuses for poor standards, especially when it comes to health and safety of the public. Of course, we can all make excuses for poor standards and behaviour. But you'll find that they are the people and companies to avoid. It's always best to accept the situation and fix it, whilst making absolutely sure that the necessary improvements are made in both the short and long term. A major change in attitude is generally needed.

As stated, these places just never made sense to me. Neither does the attraction of them.

 

[ForssAwakens]

I'm not so sure, I bet this differs with each area/ inspector, and I bet it's a case of who you know (who you are) not what you know. I've zero experience of FSA inspections mind.

But, the reason I say it, is in my work (working on highways etc) some of the local councils which are meant to help can be an absolute nightmare, and yet go 50 miles down the road and they're the best ever. Some days one guy lets you get away with one little thing (which is clearly an oversight), yet the next day they come down on you like a ton of bricks for something even more trivial, or completely beyond control, people are weird and interpretation of standards varies by many.

It's interesting regarding the council too, as their standard of work and safety is shocking for highway works, compared to the people they're meant to be inspecting.

I have zero experience but I’ll give you opinion of why I disagree with you.