Episode 8: "Common Threads" Options

[actor59]

I'm a new poster, but I've been a fan of the show since it started. I record every episode and watch them, sometimes more than once, depending on which one of my family want's to see it.

The challenge was good and I loved that they brought the kids into it. I think it's a bit silly that they gave them $10 and sent them to Whole Foods to shop? Who in thier right mind would shop at Whole Foods if they were on a real budget? and who believes that they paid retail there and came out of the store with more than a smoothie and a supliment pack.

Get real.

Hey MD welcome to the boards and welcome to Whole Foods Gate...lol

[EriRose]

Yeah, I thought he was pretty classy about it.

That was an interesting point about the guest judge. He seemed to be pretty uncritical when it came to dishes, at least in his blog. I just have a hard time seeing how he would like a "curry" made with only equal proportions of cumin, cinnamon and tamarind as seasonings. And who knows why he would like Stephanie's dish when two other judges seem to dislike it intensely? He seemed the kind of guy who didn't want to say bad things about anyone's sincere efforts. Maybe we're also forgetting the kids. Perhaps they were swayed by the peanut butter and maybe they liked it better than some of even the more "refined" dishes (we'll probably never know that one, just that they liked Mark's dish the least). Kids sometimes like "mushy" things after all.

Hi, I really enjoy reading everyone's point of view here. I'm new to the Top Chef board, but have been paying attention on and off for the last few years. I loved the first season,and rooted for Harold the whole way. I have to admit I kind of like mushy couscous. I believe Lee Ann in her blog also mentioned that Stephanie's vegetables were good, as well as her apple dessert so that may have helped her too. The kids were a factor that didn't seem to be exploited fully. I can't believe they would keep Stephanie for drama because she seems to be the most low key chef along with Nikki. I hope Stephanie has good luck with the wedding cake, which she seems to be making by herself, at least from what they have shown us in the ads for Wedding Wars. I'm rooting for her. I'm starting to like Antonia and Dale more and more.

[teleburst]

I think there are some interesting points brought up. I'm not saying I agree with everything, but it certainly does give one *food* for thought!

Very interested in Tele's opinion and everyone elses---we have a day to go before Wedding Wars---just trying to stir the pot a little!

Well, there certainly is a disparity between FOH and BOH in terms of wages. It's sort of like the disparity between actors and production people in films and television. In fact, BOH is a production position and FOH is more of a sales position (and of course, without sounding egotistical, the figurehead of the restaurant). And a server is more like an independant contractor in a way. The restaurant provides him or her with "real estate" and a product, and the server is paid a minimum amount and allowed to work his or her "territory" as they see fit (within the guidelines of the restaurant, of course) in order to maximize their income. Most of that income comes directly from the consumer, so it's akin to a commission-based position, especially since the income is a percentage of the gross sales minus "costs" (tipouts).

BOH is a little different in that you can count on periodic raises, firm hours, etc. So there's a little more "stability" in income and there's an incentive possible. Plus, you can always move up in terms of positional mobility by ving up to an 'executive position" if that's something that you want to work towards. Servers really don't have much mobility and their incentive is to get compensated by the guest, who is free to compensate based on no particular rationality if they chose to (most don't do this, mind you, but there are a small minority who choose to "cheap out", simply because they can). Having said that, even with the mobility issue, wages in BOH lag behind FOH. But, most BOH people are happy where they are. They could certainly become servers and make more money, but most of them like not having to deal with guests, especially when they hear secondhand about what guests sometimes put us through. Plus, they'd rather cook than serve, even though it's a hotter, sweatier, dirtier, often stressier sort of position. BOH people seem to thrive on it. They don't have to fuss with their appearance and they have a more free-wheeling job lifestyle (the ole "pirate" thing that Bourdain talks about sometimes).

Tips are an unusual form of compensation in that's it's based on direct interaction with the guest. In fact, that's how the Federal government defines a "tipped employee" - first, you make at least $25 in tips a week (I think it's a week). Then, you have to provide direct service to the guest (which is why the courts have ruled that hostesses can now be considered tipped employees). And there's the old "normally tipped occupation" clause that excludes management and presumably kitchen.

I wouldn't be in favor of a shared tip pool for the whole restaurant. I'm not even in favor of tip pools in general because I think it defeats the purpose of a single person putting forth their best effort in terms of service. I'm not talking about tipouts but tip pools where all of the money is evenly divided amongst staffers. I think it encourages mediocrity in a way because you always have differing levels of commitment, competence and work ethic when you get more than two people together. It isn' always a bad thing. I do tip pools when I work on private parties, just as I did for lunch today. that usually works out just fine. But globally? Nahhhhh.

I'm certainly not interested in taking a hit on my income but that's just base self-interest.

BTW, most people don't know this (even many restaurant people) but autograts and automatic service charges aren't legally considered "tips". It's illegal for a restaurant to withhold or keep any normal tip income with these exceptions - they can require a tip out to other tipped employees and in some if not most states, they can indeed take a percentage out for credit card sales (fortunately I've never worked in a restaurant that does this and probably never would work for such a restaurant because this is part of the cost of doing business and I'm not willing to subsidize that cost). However, "service charges" are considered to be "owned" by the restaurant. Technically and legally, they can do anything they want with that money. They could keep every red cent if they wanted to. Most don't, of course. Most restaurants treat an autograt the same as tipped income, which is just fine since the standard for handling of tip income is far stricter.

Hmmm, the restaurant business is just like sausage. Might be better not to know exactly how it's made <chuckle>.

[actor59]

I'm watching the replay of the Tail Gate epi and it just hit me the guest judge could of been Mike Midgely's brother....

[teleburst]

When Top Ramen ponies up the cash to be a sponsor. Then well get the Top Ramen Top Chef Top Challenge!

I should run Bravo's media department.

You really should.

I loves me some ramen. And I don't even try to gussy it up. One time, I put some boiled chicken in one (I was trying to maximize the chicken left over from making a big pot of stock) and it didn't even make it better. It was a distraction from the MSG-fueled goodness and essential ramen purity <chuckle>.

Still, sponsorship notwithstanding, it seems like such a natural challenge. Who hasn't had ramen save their bacon at one point or another? Thank you Momofuku Edo. Not only did you lend your name to Elvis Costello's great new album, you made it possible to have a filling and satisfying dish in 5 minutes with minimum cleanup.

BTW, I was in my Thai store a couple of weeks ago and found a Tom Yum soup ramen. It wasn't horrible but it was a pale imitation of the real thing. At least it tasted somewhat like curry, unlike Mark's bastardization of the noble red curry.

[bJason]

Kinda butting in here because I found this very interesting!



Chris Borrelli had a good article in the Chicago Tribune last week about tips and how they get disbursed. I think the article made some great points, especially about what I consider an exploitative behavior of some restaurants which charge a percentage of the waiter's tip to cover credit card processing fees, as if it's the waiter's fault the restaurant accepts plastic.

Assuming the restaurant doesn't pay a flat processing fee to the credit card company, I might buy into the idea of sharing a percentage of the cost of a tip on an exceedingly large gratuity, since the restaurant would have to pay a greater processing fee without receiving any portion of the tip. Of course, I'd more likely accept that premise if restaurants started treating their waiters as real business partners and paid them full minimum wage.

One aspect that wasn't covered in the article which I think bears some attention is the long simmering tension between the front of the house (i.e. the service staff) and the back of the house (the cooks and dishwashers etc), particularly in high end restaurants, which is often exacerbated by the tip system.



In elite restaurants, many chefs work a minimum of 14 hour days, and that's a conservative estimate. I know of many local restaurants where's it's not uncommon to pull the occasional or regular 80-90 hour work week as a line cook.

In those same establishments, waiters tend to come in a few hours later and are often the first to leave at the end of the service. Now, I'm not arguing that servers don't work hard. They stand on their feet and carry heavy plates and cases of wine for hours on end. Likewise, good service requires a unique and valuable skill set, like the ability to cultivate a relationship with a customer and be exacting without being too overbearing, something chefs can't always do. At the end of the day, from what I've seen, the front of house work is usually cleaner, more air-conditioned, and many of these folks work a few less hours.

That being said, even if servers and line cooks worked the same hours or had exactly similar responsibilities, the disparity in their wages, especially at these high end establishments is extraordinary. At the really high end spots, it's not uncommon for servers to pull in $60-80,000 while a typical line cook makes $24-28,000 dollars.

Part of the reason for the disparity is that restaurants generally subsidize the full labor cost of a kitchen worker, whereas, the server's salary is subsidized by customer tips. Servers would argue that because tips are variable and they assume some risk in working for them, they deserve the spoils. That's very true at the low end, though also not as consequential, because the disparity between servers and kitchen staff is much smaller on the low end of dining.

At high end restaurants, with educated wealthy clientele, average tip percentages are rarely below 18%, and in some cases, I know many average slightly above 20% because the experiences are so extraordinary. Servers at those places might argue that the reason tips are so high is strictly because of the service, but when's the last time you said, hey I need to go to that restaurant because I hear they have kick ass servers? It's a good bet you're going because you read about a sweet dish from awesome chef X, which is likely prepared by a brigade of overworked and underpaid line cooks. Subconsciously, there's no question most diners at this level are tipping well because they ate well.

I think this makes for an argument for some kind of shared pooling system to honor the contribution of the cooks and support staff. Doing so, might even free restaurants so they don't have to spend as much of their working capital on kitchen salaries, and they might be able to lower food prices or provide better overall dining experiences.

Though the reason cooks tend to work such ridiculous hours now is because one way restaurants compensate for the low margins earned on food is by hiring less staff than they really need. I'd bet even if they had to pay less in labor costs through such a system, prices on menus probably wouldn't drop much.

The problem of creating such shared system is that federal department of labor rules state: Tipped employees may not be required to share their tips with employees who have not customarily and regularly participated in tip pooling arrangements, such as dishwashers, cooks, chefs, and janitors.

There is a way to legally create a pooled system, though, and that's to charge a flat service fee. A service fee is not considered a tip, and allows the restaurant to share the fee however they choose within the infrastructure of the restaurant. That's the model that Per Se in New York follows.

The main complaint about such a system is that it robs the diner of the ability to award great service or punish bad service. Generally speaking, there may be a gaffe or two, but in my experience there's no such thing as bad service at places like Per Se, Alinea, or Charlie Trotters.

Another problem is that technically the restaurant can do whatever it wants with such a fee, and there's no guarantee anyone will see the return in salaries. Though I would guess high end places would disburse honorably.

The other problem with a service fee is that now in the diner's mind a fixed meal price that used to be $200 just became $240+ with a 20% service fee. The psychological barrier of being compelled to pay a higher price, even though you were probably going to do so voluntarily is tough to get past, and could hurt a restaurant or cause customers to flock elsewhere.

Likewise, servers would rebel, because such a system would likely depress wages and reduce the amount they used to earn. Though, as I mentioned, I believe cooks have gotten stuck with the short end of the stick for years, and an adjustment needs to occur to honor their contribution and create better overall working relations.

My argument is not to reduce anyone's wages though, and so I might even suggest a higher mandatory service fee if people can't make a fair wage. On the other hand if a server who used to make 80,000 now makes 60,000 and a cook moves up to 50,000 as a result of such a system, it's tough to argue that someone's not receiving a fair wage.

Ultimately, I think what Borrelli's article and my summation here address is that diners should understand where their dollars are going and what they're buying when they dine out. Assuming restaurants aren't making money hand over fist and just not taking care of their employees, there is some responsibility on the part of the diner to ensure a healthy restaurant industry.

I realize, in such a poor economy, everyone's worried about their next move and every dollar spent. The idea of accepting any kind of burden of responsibility is really tough to swallow. On the other hand, as a freelance food writer who tends to make more in the ballpark of a line cook than a high end server, I still support paying slightly more, tipping a bit more, or encouraging a shared pool if it helps improve service, food, and ultimately the livelihood of those workers. It's an easy proposition for me, because the work I've seen the workers in this industry do is extraordinary and also extraordinarily hard and I believe they deserve it. Of course, we all do.

WOW! This is a big one. My first thought, as a former restaurateur is that a restaurant is not a socialist society. It is a capitalist industry. If a person is willing to stake hir income on hir performance, s/he should not be begrudged the fruits of hir labor. If a line cook/sous chef/dishwasher accepts a job offered for a given salary then that is it. If the server is informed that hir wages will be reduced to cover credit card processing fees and s/he accepts this as a factor of hir job/pay – and still agrees to take the job - then so be it. Is this an insidious thing to do to your staff? YES! Do they have a say in whether or not you (as the restaurant owner) accept credit cards? I would say – no! It would be interesting to know (though I am sure that I do) whether or not a given server, in this situation, can refuse to accept credit cards.

As for the disparity between FOH and BOH take-home-pay – that is what it is. Does it suck? Sure. BOH make a set wage and FOH rely on gratuities. If one wants to make the most money in the rest. business – s/he gambles on hir ability to earn tips. If one wants to earn a steady wage, s/he puts hirself in the BOH.

Unfortunately, it is business economics. If restaurateurs could get away with paying BOH staff less, they would. They get away with paying FOH staff less because they can.

[WhataJoke]

Yeah, I thought he was pretty classy about it.

That was an interesting point about the guest judge. He seemed to be pretty uncritical when it came to dishes, at least in his blog. I just have a hard time seeing how he would like a "curry" made with only equal proportions of cumin, cinnamon and tamarind as seasonings. And who knows why he would like Stephanie's dish when two other judges seem to dislike it intensely? He seemed the kind of guy who didn't want to say bad things about anyone's sincere efforts. Maybe we're also forgetting the kids. Perhaps they were swayed by the peanut butter and maybe they liked it better than some of even the more "refined" dishes (we'll probably never know that one, just that they liked Mark's dish the least). Kids sometimes like "mushy" things after all.

Well he whacked Lisa's meal for being bland.
And he said Mark's attitude sucked. Whcih was really strange considering the episode. Could he have ment Lisa's?

He liked the Curry which is a wash because he said he liked the Peanut disaster too. The more I read his blog the more I think he was mixing things up.

But Lee Anne said it wasn't great but it wasn't bad either. Lee Anne didnt mention tasting Stephanie's dish I don't think.

[WhataJoke]

EriRose Posted Today, 03:42 PM
Hi, I really enjoy reading everyone's point of view here. I'm new to the Top Chef board, but have been paying attention on and off for the last few years. I loved the first season,and rooted for Harold the whole way. I have to admit I kind of like mushy couscous. I believe Lee Ann in her blog also mentioned that Stephanie's vegetables were good, as well as her apple dessert so that may have helped her too. The kids were a factor that didn't seem to be exploited fully. I can't believe they would keep Stephanie for drama because she seems to be the most low key chef along with Nikki. I hope Stephanie has good luck with the wedding cake, which she seems to be making by herself, at least from what they have shown us in the ads for Wedding Wars. I'm rooting for her. I'm starting to like Antonia and Dale more and more.

Hey Eri welcome aboard.
I think that Stephanie gets kept because they liked her cooking in past challenges and Mark's work was not as good to this point. Also she does get nervous and has melt downs, much like this weeks peanutbutter mess. The drama of a good chef failing spectacularly can be a good story for Production as well.

Don't get me wrong I like Stephanie alot and would love to see her win but Tre didn't get any slack cut his way in RW and I think he was a better chef than the Majority of people here this season.

[bJason]

One quick correction - nobody gets (or should get) taxed on anything other than what they actually make and what's reported on the W2, which is based on the reported tips and if a restaurant is reporting gross tips before tipout as income, they are not only wrong, they are cheating you. The only thing that should be reported is your after-tipout tips, i.e., the money that you walk with in your pocket at the end of the night. You do have to report your gross tips, but you shouldn't be taxed on that. You should also be subtracting out any tipout amounts to come to a net figure and THAT'S what you should be taxed on.

I don't know about LA, since the Napoleonic Code thing there is weird, but it's against federal law to require tipping out to "normally not-tipped employees" like managers and kitchen people.

And when you say that the paycheck goes toward taxes, let me emphasize to non-restaurant people that it doesn't begin to cover all of the Federal income tax. Unless we kick in additional money out of pocket throughout the year, withholding falls well short of our actual taxes in April. For instance, I owed $2800 this year. There's just not enough 2.13 money to go around. So, we get a zero check and still owe a bunch toward taxes.

Oh yeah, technically those recipients of your tipouts are supposed to claim them as income. Every restaurant I've worked in has made bussers and food runners declare what we give them, mainly because we actually have reported those tipouts ourselves as a reduction of OUR income. It doesn't surprise me that some restaurants don't do that though.

In the state where I was a waiter, it was required that servers declared salered income plus 8% of individual gross sales - whether or not that percentage was made. I quit a job because I was required to tip-out such that I took home LESS than the 8% on which I was being taxed. When I approached my boss with this delimma she replied that that sucked but it was company policy (national chain).

[teleburst]

You know for a guy who went out of his way to find out about amino acids in white rice you really dropped the ball ont he fats in coconut Milk. I mentioned it before there are so many suspected and proven benefits to it that there is ongoing medical research being done on them and there has been in the past.

http://www.templeofthai.com/cooking/coconu...cholesterol.php

For instance, a study in 1981 showed that islanders with high intakes of coconut oil showed "no evidence of the high saturated fat intake having a harmful effect in these populations". When these groups migrated to New Zealand, however, and lowered their intake of coconut oil, their total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol increased, and their HDL cholesterol decreased.

One possible reason that the saturated fat in coconut had no harmful effect on the islanders, Dr. Enig proposes, is the lauric acid. Approximately 50% of the fatty acids in coconut fat are lauric acid. Lauric acid is a medium chain fatty acid, found naturally in mother's milk. Lauric acid has the beneficial function of being formed into monolaurin in the body. Monolaurin is the antiviral, antibacterial, and antiprotozoal monoglyceride used by the body to destroy lipid-coated viruses such as HIV, herpes, and influenza.

Sounds exactly like a bad fat to me.

After Tom and Co. slip up with the Lobster last season he should stay away from arguing about health benefits.

And again we are talking about the dish as part of a healthy diet and I think it certainly qualifies. Considering there is not a shortage or concern with children lacking protien in their diets I find the protein argument to be a red herring to get rid of a contestant.

I'm glad that we've found a cure for HIV, especially since I use my fair share of coconut milk.

However, it doesn't seem to be a slam dunk either.

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=137224

"Q. Is coconut milk high in saturated fat?

A. Yes, regular coconut milk is extremely high in saturated fat, It is also high in calories. Just ½ cup contains roughly 250 calories and between 20 to 25 grams of saturated fat -- at least a day's worth.

As a more healthful alternative, try using small amounts of light coconut milk to retain that distinct taste with much less fat. Keep your portion to ½ cup and you'll get just 50 calories and 4 grams of saturated fat.

Wide-sweeping Internet claims that the fat in coconut milk and coconut oil offers distinct health benefits are not supported by sound research".

However, I really didn't mean to single out the coconut milk as a reason why his dish wasn't a balanced nutritional meal. The issue to me was the incomplete protein. And even those who sing the praises of coconut milk seem to think that it's best to be used in moderation anyway, still keeping in mind that it's high in fat, even the good kind. And I have no problem with the way Mark used it. And I don't think that it was singled out as an issue by the judges.

As to the study, I can't really address it, not having access to it, but it doesn't seem clear that a reduction of coconut milk is the sole cause of the islanders' rise in cholesterol. I don't know if they eliminated all other relevant issues in change of diet and environment.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a coconut milk fan. I've got four cans of it in my pantry as I type this. I couldn't cook much of my Thai food without it. I even have several different kinds of coconut milk for different uses. I have the lighter version that only has 8% fat and I also have the 22% variety as well. Both have their places in my cooking especially in moderation.

[Bed & Breakfast]

Your name was taken in vein? Did people miss Mass too?

Seriously It's good to see you back and glad to hear things are busy.

Wait I thought it was the "worst food goes" theory? It's certainly not "all about the food" as I could gone on and on about with casting past eliminations etc...

Yes I agree "offputing" could be a something that simply inspires a subjective response, such as your aversion to Dill. However in Stephanie's case the dish was poorly executed as even the cous cous was overcooked, the flavor combination seemed to be disgusting, it was visually nauseating and also Padma "Detested" it, backing up the point that it was nasty. So I'd say that when Tom says "offputting" he's being kind and using a bit of Damage control for someone who has excelled in the past.

Your example of Casey Mole' at Latin Lunch is close but Lia's food was poorly cooked, didn't taste good and wasn't Latin and she deserved to go.

And Clearly Tom was fishing for any reason to eliminate Mark when he played the protein card. I talked to a friend of mind who is a nutritionist and the the only thing she could find that why people would think it was "unhealthy" was the coconut milk simply for the saturated fat but also noted that the type of saturated fat in coconut milk also offers health benefits and is the subject of medical research for it's benefits. Between the vegetables and the coconut milk there was enough protein for a healthy meal as part of a balanced diet, that is unless your looking for some reason to eliminate someone on a Reality TV show.

Couple the coconut milk with the Sweet Potato, Squash and other vegetables and your assertion that his meal did not provide a semblance of Protein is wrong and your notion that it lacked vitamins is even more wrong.

Again this was another contestant being scapegoated to save two others who had worse food for various reasons.

It amazes me how many peeps read a religious context into my comment. In this case, "using my name in vain" merely refers to (a)people using my name and things I've said for concepts that they were not intended for, ( misquoting and/or misinterpreting things I've said, © and/or using things I've said for their own gain. There was no Deity intended or involved.

Quickly, by paragraph. (1)The three dishes at J/T were, more or less, equally flawed, so there was no "worst" dish. Yet, the elimination was about the food; lousy curry and insufficient protein.

(2) So we agree that "off-putting" is not "inedible". Like I said, all three dishes had flaws.

(3) Exactly my point; while Casey's dish brought her to J/T, ultimately the dish that failed on concept (not Latin) was eliminated.

(4 + 5) I didn't say that the dish was unhealthy, nor that it lacked vitamins. But it was lacking in protein. While the vegetables were there, there was not the combination (like legumes and grain) that would make a complete protein. That was part of the concept of the challenge, and any "Top Chef" would have made sure there was sufficient protein in the dish, especially with Oprah's chef as one of the judges.

(6) Even if I agreed that the other two dishes were worse, (which I don't, as we really don't know how horrible Mark's curry was), neither was enough worse to single one of them out. Thus, concept of the challenge became the definitive factor. (see Joey, Howie, & Sandee.)

Bottom line, from my viewpoint, the decision had to be about the food; Mark would have been better for ratings than either of the women.

Now, back to reading at page 10!

[Jazzie53]

Fair and Balanced as always Jazzie, You work for CNN?

No....I don't think CNN could give me enough nap breaks! (or porch parties for that matter.)

Even after catching up on the reading....again, here's why this 10 dollars at the whole foods store leave me shaking my head.
Example:
Today....ok.....I have leftover baked porkchops with apples in the fridge. I had split peas in my pantry as well as my spices. I bought...1 onion, 1 potato, 2 packs of manager's special ground pork, one bag of coleslaw mix, and one bag of 50 cents day old sandwich rolls...all for dinner, then I added a few needed things.... a box of multi-grain saltines., a large carton of plain yogurt (for something else) and the kidlet's on sale chocolate bar. My grand total came to $13.65.

All this translates into tonights dinner...split peas with apples, cabbage, and pork; the rest of last night's salad on the side, plus pork-burgers with swiss cheese on the sandwich rolls.

The leftover split peas will then go into another day's dinner somewhere else in the week. I"m careful in my shopping....but couldn't meet the 10 dollar challenge for four unless.....I had lentils in the pantry (quickest-cooking of the high protein legumes) and based my meal around the lentils. But I'm just a middle-aged Mom, what do I know! Besides, most family meals, especially on a budget, incorporate leftovers, pantry items, and on sale specials. Half the time I am making up my menu for the day or the next day based on what I see on sale.

So....while I am glad they had one of the more realistic for TC challenges, it falls short (IMHO) of a reality dinner for four under $10.01!
Jazzie
*wink wink*

[teleburst]

In the state where I was a waiter, it was required that servers declared salered income plus 8% of individual gross sales - whether or not that percentage was made. I quit a job because I was required to tip-out such that I took home LESS than the 8% on which I was being taxed. When I approached my boss with this delimma she replied that that sucked but it was company policy (national chain).

I would have quit that job if my tipout was so high that I couldn't walk with even 8% of gross sales. I had a yooge tipout at my last job (45% of my actual tips went out the window) but I was still able to average between 10 and 12% of gross sales (I had a realistic average of about 18% overall and over time). My tipout was 7% of gross sales, which usually translated to that 45% figure. Currently, my tipout is more like 27% of actual tips (we don't tipout based on sales, which I think is the best way to do it), so my average is usually closer to 15% of gross sales, so I'm pretty happy. I'm still averaging about the same percentage but I keep far more money.

I don't know if it's illegal to use a firm number, but I assume that the IRS would definitely frown on that if they came in to audit. They want actual income reported, not estimated. This might have been a carryover from the days when everyone had to report at least 8% and that figure was rarely disputed, but the IRS started to require much more accurate reporting in the mid 90s because very few servers average only 8% even after tipout (you were an obvious exception). In fact, they require every server to keep a personal log of their tips, including all credit card and cash tips, how much and WHO you tip out to, etc. Most of us don't do it though. I don't worry about it, since I report every penny I make and if I get audited, I can easily show that I claim far higher than the threshold that the IRS probably looks for (they keep the number secret, but they've done a lot of statistical research about tipping habits and they can predict pretty closely what you should be reporting based soley on your credit card tips). Most people think that it falls in the 11 -13% area. Also, our restaurant is TRAC compliant, which is a tip agreement that the IRS makes with a restaurant. They agree not to routinely regularly audit in exchange for very close tracking of tips. We fill out what's called a TRAC sheet, which lists all of the sales and tip/tipout amounts at the end of every shift. And the final figure, our walking money, is what we declare when we clock out.

We don't have to declare our hourly wage because that's automatically reported on our paychecks and on our W2s

[partsgirl]

More like 60K (if he's lucky).

Even 100k won't get you very far in Nashville, much less NYC. What's golden is just appearing on TC. That's what gets you investors, connections, etc.



People don't realize that you can't just walk into a bank and say, "I've got $60 grand to put into my own restaurant - please give me a business loan to finish my $250,000 restaurant (which is small change for a restaurant). It's not like putting 20% down on a house, or 20% down on a car in order to insure that you'll get financed. Unless you have a serious track record, you could put up 50% and they'd still laugh at you (behind your back, of course).

GE is one of the few venture capital companies (read banks) that will even back restaurant ventures and they want to see at least $10,000,000 and something like at least 4 units. And they are considered about the only "traditional" source of restaurant capital for "the little guys". There are some edgy "venture capital companies" that will take a chance, but they are few and far between. Most people looking to open new restaurants write off the idea of going to banks or the SBA.

About the only way to get capital for restaurants, is to go the private investor route. And those folks are more impressed with "I made it to round 4 on Top Chef" than, "I've got a check for $60k that I'm willing to throw in". They're more impressed because they are often times well-off "ordinary people" needing a place to park some money other than a CD in a bank. I imagine that opening a restaurant on Manhattan almost requires a bit of Star Power (just the cachet you get from even appearing for a couple of episodes on a show like Top Chef). Or, maybe Jeffery Chodorow can put in a good word for you.

... Ten Million?

[actor59]

OK tipping question??
My Chinese food was 32 and change...It was delivered..How much woud you all leave?

Don't lie and make me feel cheap
even though I am

I won't tell what I gave till youse guys do.
But I'm not cheap about tipping..It is very rare
that I tip under 20 %...Usually just or over.
But for buffets and to go???

I would of atleast tipped $5 gas prices you know are high... plus the convience as well...lol

[partsgirl]

Well, mine's pretty obvious: Mother Hubbard's Cupboard. I'd go for a full line of old-fashioned comfort food—with no regard for fat and carb levels, cholesterol, or calorie counts.

And I'd just spoon the food onto the plate. Neatly, but no decorations, and no big, bare plate surfaces showing around tiny portions of food.

Testify, Sister!

[partsgirl]

I would of atleast tipped $5 gas prices you know are high... plus the convience as well...lol

Yup, I'm with Actor. I used to deliver. Your job is to get the food to the customer's house warm and (hopefully) not tipped over/messy. 5-6 bucks is ok. When I lived in a more remote region I would tip higher as a way of saying thank you for delivering eventhough I live in BFE. Not to be an ass here, but you're delivering food. Not setting their table, refilling ice tea glasses, or removing empty dishes.

[BreBaby]

OK tipping question??
My Chinese food was 32 and change...It was delivered..How much woud you all leave?

Don't lie and make me feel cheap
even though I am

I won't tell what I gave till youse guys do.
But I'm not cheap about tipping..It is very rare
that I tip under 20 %...Usually just or over.
But for buffets and to go???

I was a waitress for a number of years, & loved it. I usually tip 20 to 25 percent, just because I know how much wait staff depends on their tips. For to-go orders, I usually don't tip anything, unless it's like a car-side service, & then just a couple bucks.
Buffets however. I absolutely dispised working buffets. No one thought they had to tip. However, the wait staff is still getting you your drink, checking up with you, & clearing plates. We still do just as much work, but NEVER get an tips for it. I tip fairly well during buffets just because I know how much they suck, haha.

[SecondTry]

So tomorrow night is Nikki's Restaurant, Take 2: I'm taking Dan and his boyfriend Peter out for dinner to celebrate Dan's show.

Will give a full review AFTER I watch my tape of Top Chef.

[WhataJoke]

It amazes me how many peeps read a religious context into my comment. In this case, "using my name in vain" merely refers to (a)people using my name and things I've said for concepts that they were not intended for, ( misquoting and/or misinterpreting things I've said, © and/or using things I've said for their own gain. There was no Deity intended or involved.

Quickly, by paragraph. (1)The three dishes at J/T were, more or less, equally flawed, so there was no "worst" dish. Yet, the elimination was about the food; lousy curry and insufficient protein.

(2) So we agree that "off-putting" is not "inedible". Like I said, all three dishes had flaws.

(3) Exactly my point; while Casey's dish brought her to J/T, ultimately the dish that failed on concept (not Latin) was eliminated.

(4 + 5) I didn't say that the dish was unhealthy, nor that it lacked vitamins. But it was lacking in protein. While the vegetables were there, there was not the combination (like legumes and grain) that would make a complete protein. That was part of the concept of the challenge, and any "Top Chef" would have made sure there was sufficient protein in the dish, especially with Oprah's chef as one of the judges.

(6) Even if I agreed that the other two dishes were worse, (which I don't, as we really don't know how horrible Mark's curry was), neither was enough worse to single one of them out. Thus, concept of the challenge became the definitive factor. (see Joey, Howie, & Sandee.)

Bottom line, from my viewpoint, the decision had to be about the food; Mark would have been better for ratings than either of the women.

Now, back to reading at page 10!

1: Stephanies dish was easily the worst dish. It was so bad that the Judges were making EXCUSES for her or trying to find reasons why it was so bad. Again Padma said it was "disgusting" and she "detested" it. Not to mention she overcooked the cous cous. Disgusting and poor execution.

Lee Ann said Marks Curry wasn't great but it wasn't bad either. So your calling it lousy seems like a bit of an exageration.

2: When Another Judge says it was disgusting and she desteded it I'ts a good bet that "offputting" is a nice way to say nasty and it would also be damage control by Tom C. who clearly let past performace over rule the disaster at hand.

3: I thought your theory was "worst food goes"? There is realy no way that you can argue that Mark's was the worst. Mark also seemed to be the only chef that followed the rules of the challenge. But we know from last week that you don't need to follow the rules.

4/5: This was your quote from your Post.
"The other two dishes, though flawed, did provide at least some semblance of vitamins and proteins. His did not, thus he was eliminated, and it was for the food he prepared."

Sounds like your saying that it lacked vitamins to me.
And Part of the concept was to cook food for 10 dollars at Whole foods. Mark seems like the only person who followed the rules. How much would Stephanie's Whole Chicken have costed her? A "top chef" wouldn't make a dish that looked like peanut butter vomit with cous cous either A top chef doesn't have unseasoned food. You still havent explained how unseasoned food can be worse than mushy scaley gross looking salmon but better than average, nutritionaly nit picked curry. Take your time cause it's a tough nut to crack.


6: You would like to say that you don't know how bad the curry was but Lee Anne pretty much dispells that it was as bad as "disgusting" food that a judge "detested". Padma's silence in blog land pretty much confirms this.
Why do you think Padma has no blog this week? There is no possible way she could have justified keeping Stephanie and it's better for her to just not say anything further.

The bottom line is that many eliminations have been geared towards a payoff tomorrow night. Lisa vs. Dale round two. Again Producing reality TV isnt for you.