Restaurant Operations

Covid-19 vaccine vial on blue background
by David Klemt David Klemt No Comments

EEOC Clarifies Vaccine Stance

EEOC Clarifies Vaccine Stance

by David Klemt

Covid-19 vaccine vial on blue background

American employers have the right to require Covid-19 vaccination as a condition of employment.

This is according to recent clarifications from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Perhaps learning from yet more missteps from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the EEOC is making their position clearer.

Requirements

Per the EEOC, requiring workers to get a Covid-19 vaccine doesn’t violate federal law.

However, an employer failing to provide “reasonable accommodation” in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act would be illegal.

According to the EEOC’s guidance update:

“Federal EEO laws do not prevent an employer from requiring all employees physically entering the workplace to be vaccinated for COVID-19, so long as employers comply with the reasonable accommodation provisions of the ADA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other EEO considerations. Other laws, not in EEOC’s jurisdiction, may place additional restrictions on employers.”

Additionally, employers who offer on-site vaccinations take on an additional responsibility. They must keep confidential any personal medical information gleaned during employee pre-vaccination screenings.

Of course, the agency’s guidance isn’t only for employers. Employees can access a fact sheet explaining pandemic-specific protections that are in place.

Incentives

The EEOC’s update also addresses the right for employers to offer employees vaccine incentives.

In short, the agency says incentives are legal as long as they’re not coercive. Of course, legal experts will argue that one person’s perception of coercion will differ from another’s.

Really, the only example the EEOC provides for what may constitute a coercive incentive is “a very large incentive” that may make an employee “feel pressured to disclose protected medical information.”

Per a survey by Arizona State University and the Rockefeller Foundation, two-thirds of employers plan to offer vaccination incentives rather than mandates. However, nearly half say they’ll implement mandates if incentives don’t work. Only one-third of survey respondents don’t plan to impose vaccination requirements on employees.

Challenges

Look, we all know America is a litigious society. Given that, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that some states have already banned vaccine requirements and passports.

Nor should it be a shock that lawsuits have been filed by employees challenging the legality of vaccine requirements. At least half of US states have introduced bills seeking to seek to limit COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

Operators have a lot to consider when it comes to vaccine requirements and incentives. For example, offering the incentive that fully vaccinated employees can go maskless at work while non-vaccinated workers must wear masks can be a form of discrimination.

Beyond legal challenges, operators must also contend with public perception and backlash. With the divisions plaguing America currently, operators have a lot to think about before requiring Covid-19 vaccines for employees. While some guests will view such requirements as a responsible move that protects employees, guests and the public, others will see it as a massive violation of personal freedoms and a form of tyranny.

Truly, this is a time when operators must seriously draw on their leadership abilities, empathy, and emotional intelligence.

Clearly, the topics of vaccine requirements and vaccine incentives necessitate careful consideration. This is an important leadership moment that hinges on an operator’s understanding of their team, their guests, and the market in which they operate.

Do not make vaccine decisions lightly.

Disclaimer

This content is for informational purposes only, and should not be used as legal or other advice. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor does any information constitute a comprehensive or complete statement of the matters discussed or the law. This information is of a general nature and does not address the circumstances of a specific individual or entity. The reader of this information alone assumes the sole responsibility of evaluating the merits and risks associated with the use of any information before making any decisions based on such information.

Image: Daniel Schludi on Unsplash

Wad of dollar bills with red rubber band
by David Klemt David Klemt No Comments

State of the RRF: By the Numbers

State of the RRF: By the Numbers

by David Klemt

Wad of dollar bills with red rubber band

The “tale of the tape” of the Restaurant Revitalization Fund tells a clear story: the RRF needs an injection of tens of billions of dollars.

Clearly, $28.6 was nowhere near enough to award every eligible restaurant and bar with a grant.

In fact, the RRF would need at least another $50 billion to serve all eligible applicants.

The Numbers

First, the Small Business Administration is to be commended for setting up the RRF portal, making the application process clear, and handling applications well.

However, there’s one glaring issue with the RRF and the review and awards process. I’ll get to that in the next section.

Per the National Restaurant Association, more than 362,000 applications were submitted via the RRF portal.

In total, the applications add up to $75 billion in grant requests. Again, the RRF was funded by the government with $28.6 billion. It doesn’t take a mathematician to see that the fund was severely underfunded.

Controversy

Last week, a number of Republican members of Congress sent a letter to the SBA. The gist of their message was that the RRF’s closure was premature. Therefore, the group concluded, non-priority applicants wouldn’t receive grants or even have the opportunity to apply for grants.

In the letter, which can be reviewed here, the authors also took shots at Democrats, the Biden Administration, and undocumented immigrants.

Setting politics aside, the announcement of the RRF’s portal closure was inarguably premature. The application process was first opened on Monday, May 3. For the first 21 days, the SBA announced that while all eligible entities could apply, only priority applicants would be processed and awarded grants.

However, the RRF portal closed to applications on Monday, May 24…21 days after it first opened. The members of Congress who penned the letter to the SBA have a point: the SBA closed the RRF portal after only operating within the priority window.

Now What?

There’s no other way to put this: The RRF needs more funding.

Essentially, it needs twice the funding it had when it was first seeded. There’s zero guarantee that Congress will address this matter, but at least a handful of lawmakers are aware of the dire situation.

Two weeks ago, the NRA launched a petition urging the government to replenish the RRF. Of course, the RRF also needs to be reopened for applications, and the application process needs to be open to all eligible applicants.

There’s no promise the petition will achieve the desired result but we must do something. Click here to sign the petition and tell Congress the RRF needs to be replenished and reopened.

Image: Karolina Grabowska from Pexels

The Next Step chalk concept with footprints
by David Klemt David Klemt No Comments

What the B.C. Restart Means for Operators

What the B.C. Restart Means for Operators

by David Klemt

The Next Step chalk concept with footprints

In news that’s not exactly surprising, the British Columbia “circuit breaker” expiration didn’t lead to a full reopening.

Instead, the province is launching the B.C. Restart plan.

Obviously, not returning to restriction-free restaurant and bar service is disappointing. However, the plan does give operators dates against which they can plan for staffing, inventory, and other aspects of running their businesses.

Of course, that’s only if officials execute the plan as-is.

Not Surprising

As B.C. operators are well aware, the expiration of the province’s “circuit breaker” doesn’t mean they can return to pre-pandemic operations. Clearly, it would’ve been helpful to the province’s hospitality operators for officials like Premier John Horgan to have made that clear last week.

Resources are razor thin and have been since the start of the pandemic and pandemic-driven shutdowns and restrictions. The more lead time officials can provide hospitality operators to prepare for changes to Covid-19 operational protocols, the better.

Let me say that again for any officials who may read this: Restaurant, bar and other hospitality businesses need more than a few days’ notice to prepare for rule changes.

As long as B.C. Restart targets are hit and numbers don’t head in the wrong direction, at least the new plan is clearer than last week’s expiration announcement.

Four-step Plan

B.C. Restart targets four dates that should remain in place as long as Covid-19 case, hospitalization and death rates remain low. Conversely, the province is seeking increases in adult vaccination rates (for dose one).

Unsurprisingly, the province is now in step one of the four-step B.C. Restart plan. The goal is to achieve a 60-percent dose-one vaccination rate among the province’s adult population. A mask mandate is in place provincewide, as are safety protocols like social distancing. Indoor and outdoor dining is restricted to a maximum of six people, with safety protocols.

The earliest date for step two to begin is June 15 and targets a 65-percent adult vaccination rate. B.C.’s mask mandate remains, as do business safety protocols and physical distancing measures. Interestingly, the province’s travel restrictions are removed.

Step three starts on June 1 at the earliest, targeting a 70-percent adult inoculation rate, low Covid-19 case rate, and decline in hospitalizations. Officials will announce new PPE and social distancing guidelines, organized indoor and outdoor gathering capacity will increase, and nightclubs and casinos will reopen (with capacity limits and safety protocols).

If all goes to plan, September 7 is the earliest start to step four, which targets a dose-one adult vaccination rate of more than 70 percent. B.C. will permit a return to “normal” social contact.

For Operators

Restaurant and bar operators—at the moment—should focus on steps one and two of B.C. Restart.

The reason is simple: During steps one and two, restaurants and bars must operate under the pre-circuit-breaker health and safety protocols.

So, operators must follow these rules for step one:

  • Indoor and outdoor dining capacity: 6 people
  • Liquor service curfew: 10:00 PM

And the following for step two:

  • Indoor and outdoor dining capacity: 6 people
  • Liquor service curfew: Midnight

Should things stay on track, step three will rescind the liquor service curfew, and there will be no group limit for indoor and outdoor dining.

Obviously, B.C. Restart isn’t what operators wanted when officials announced the expiration of the circuit breaker. However, the new plan does allow operators to plan ahead and gives us a glimpse of a light at the end of a very long, very erratic, very dark tunnel.

To review the plan in more detail, click here.

Image: Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Remote, work-from-home setup
by David Klemt David Klemt No Comments

Remote Restaurant Workers are Here

Remote Restaurant Workers are Here

by David Klemt

Remote, work-from-home setup

When people think of working from home, rarely do they picture restaurant professionals working remotely.

Normally, people associate working from home with desk and cubicle jobs across an array of industries.

A newer technology company is trying to change that perception.

New Restaurant Tech

Bite Ninja seeks to match restaurants with remote workers to online ordering and drive-thru operations more efficient.

Let’s say your business has a drive-thru window. Obviously, someone has to work that window, meaning there are labor costs that accompany it.

As operators know, it’s difficult to recruit, hire and train right now. Some states point to the $300 federal boost to unemployment as a main culprit for the labor shortage restaurants are facing currently, announcing exits to the program.

According to Bite Ninja, remote workers are a feasible solution to labor and cost challenges (at least for some operations).

The tech company trains “Virtual Cashiers” and provides on-demand access to these remote workers.

Benefits

Per Bite Ninja, the company provides operators with several benefits. First and foremost, it would seem, is an answer to staffing challenges.

Obviously, if utilizing virtual cashiers costs less than recruiting, hiring, training and employing their counterpart, that’s a benefit. Another benefit? More staff is available to engage with and serve dining room and patio guests.

On the subject of no-call no-shows, the platform claims that simply doesn’t happen with their remote workers.

While not a solution for every operation, Bite Ninja also claims upsell averages of between $40 and $60 per shift. More importantly, the company says order accuracy through their virtual cashiers is nearly 100 percent. According to Bite Ninja, the average upsell per shift pays for a venue’s hired ninja. If that’s the case and virtual cashiers pay for themselves while making an operator more money, perhaps employees can see a pay bump.

Additionally, the company tracks some key metrics for their clients, including customer volume, order accuracy, and upsells.

KRG Hospitality Takeaway

We appreciate restaurant and bar tech that helps operators lower costs, increase profits, solve problems, improve the guest experience, and increase guest visit frequency.

However, we’re not fans of tech that eliminates a position from the industry and takes someone out of the workforce.

Bite Ninja isn’t a labor solution for every hospitality operation. For those who see the value in remote restaurant workers, at least the company isn’t building robots that eliminate one or more human jobs outright.

Image: Jonathan Kemper on Unsplash

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada skyline
by David Klemt David Klemt No Comments

Return of the Indoor Diners: B.C.

Return of the Indoor Diners: B.C.

by David Klemt

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada skyline

Good news for operators, foodservice professionals and the public as British Columbia prepares for a return to indoor dining.

The ban on indoor dining is set to expire tomorrow, along with the rest of B.C.’s so-called “circuit breaker” restrictions.

However, it remains unclear still whether restaurants can throw their doors open and welcome guests first-thing Tuesday morning.

Confusion

Some operators and restaurant advocacy groups believe the restriction on indoor dining expires at 11:59 PM tonight.

It follows, in their opinion, that the expiration means operators can offer indoor service the following morning, Tuesday, May 25.

Of course, it’s never that cut and dry, is it?

Much like the CDC’s recent update to mask and social distancing recommendations in America, B.C.’s restaurant restrictions are only causing confusion.

While the “circuit breaker” restrictions put in place back in March are set to expire, Premier John Horgan and other officials haven’t made it clear if more restrictions will be put in place.

Additionally, restaurant and other hospitality operators haven’t been given much notice. They’re simply aware that current restrictions expire before midnight tonight.

Consistently Inconsistent

It’s never great to feel like you’re on the back foot. Unfortunately, operators still don’t receive much in the way of a heads up when rules and recommendations change.

Once again, officials and the public make it clear that they think restaurants and bars can simply flip a switch and return to regular service. Once again, the industry and its challenges are ignored.

When those with the power to impose restrictions are vague about what operators should expect after their rules expire, it makes it nearly impossible for operators to prepare properly for what comes next.

Should operators plan on an increase in traffic because they can once again fill their dining rooms? Will they need to prepare for 25-, 50- or 75-percent capacity restrictions? Are their going to be limits to outdoor dining, delivery, carryout and curbside pickup?

How much F&B and other products should they order, planning for a return to indoor dining or more restrictions? In terms of staffing, should operators plan to run with a skeleton or full crew?

Every one of those questions—and several more—have an impact on resources, revenue and survivability. When officials fail to provide all the necessary information when making important announcements, they only cause confusion and create more questions than answers. Too often, they foist their responsibilities onto business owners and the public.

There’s no excuse.

Preparation

Unfortunately, there’s no silver bullet to offer operators in this situation. They’ll need to monitor the situation in B.C. and await clear guidance from government officials pertaining to any upcoming restrictions.

Yet again given no meaningful notice, it’s going to be difficult for operators to plan to get the most out of this week and the near future.

Still, operators will want to give staff notice that they should plan to work. It’s less than ideal but operators should plan to schedule against a few possibilities: a new indoor dining ban, indoor dining with capacity restrictions, and a full return indoor dining.

One of these days, perhaps politicians will listen to our massive industry’s requests and serve us better.

Image: Aditya Chinchure on Unsplash

Bottled Negroni mixed drinks and to-go cocktails
by krghospitality krghospitality No Comments

Where are To-Go Cocktails Legal?

Where are To-Go Cocktails Legal?

by David Klemt

Bottled Negroni mixed drinks and to-go cocktails

We’re still coming to grips with what the industry will look like post-pandemic. One pandemic-driven adaptation is to-go cocktails.

For this article, “cocktails” means mixed drinks specifically, as that is how most jurisdictions are defining such to-go drinks.

In some markets, operators can now offer to-go mixed drinks permanently. Some jurisdictions are offering extensions to temporary sales, while others are considering bills.

The To-Go Pivot

Clearly, our industry responds to guest demands and expectations. And what does today’s guest expect? For their every customized whim to be fulfilled—conveniently.

Therefore, it only makes sense that operators constantly adapt to encourage guest loyalty (as far as that’s possible).

People are itching to get out more, impatient to return to their pre-pandemic lives. Even so, the convenience of drinking and dining at home appeals to large swaths of the public.

Of course, it’s not just convenient.

Providing guests the choice to enjoy a restaurant or bar’s F&B offerings and semblance of their unique experience at home—including cocktails—is also about safety and comfort levels.

Obviously, we want guests to be able to comfortably and safely gather in restaurants, bars, hotels, and every other type of hospitality venue. That’s a given.

However, if some people are more comfortable at home for now, operators in a position to meet guests where they are to generate revenue should do so.

Lawmakers Respond

Carryout and delivery beer and wine sales have been legal for some time in many states. Mixed drinks, not so much.

The rules addressing “to-go” cocktails (carryout and delivery are more accurate) were relaxed in several markets in response to indoor dining bans and shutdowns.

However, “loose” laws aren’t permanent changes. Some jurisdictions will eventually rescind their relaxed approach and ban to-go cocktails unless specific legislation passes.

Iowa is the first American state to legalize to-go cocktails permanently. The vote was unanimous in the Iowa House and nearly so in the Iowa Senate.

Operators in Canada or America who intend to sell to-go cocktails must be aware of their jurisdiction’s specific rules, including but not limited to packaging requirements, volume restrictions, food sale components, and transportation laws.

Canada: Delivery and Carryout Rules

Currently, KRG Hospitality operates in Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario for the Canadian market. Therefore, we’re focusing on those provinces for this article.

Alberta

While packaged, unopened liquor may be sold for off-site consumption, pre-made cocktails may not. Food sales must accompany liquor sales.

British Columbia

The province’s approach to liquor sales for delivery and carryout are the same as Alberta’s. Operators can’t sell to-go mixed drinks.

Ontario

Restaurants and bars can sell pre-made cocktails sealed in bottles, cans, and bags. Like the other two provinces, food sales must accompany to-go liquor sales.

America: Permanent, Extended, Up for Consideration

In total, 11 states have made the move to legalize to-go mixed drinks permanently:

  • Arkansas
  • Florida
  • Georgia
  • Iowa
  • Kentucky
  • Montana
  • Ohio
  • Oklahoma
  • Texas
  • West Virginia
  • Wisconsin

Others have introduced bills to make to-go cocktails legal permanently:

  • Arizona
  • California
  • Kansas
  • Minnesota
  • Missouri
  • Nebraska
  • New Hampshire
  • New Jersey
  • New York
  • Oregon
  • Pennsylvania

A handful have extended to-go cocktails until at least 2022:

  • Delaware (March 2022)
  • Illinois (2024)
  • Maine (September 2022)
  • Virginia (July 2022)
  • Washington (July 2023)

Image: Jonas Tebbe on Unsplash

Red neon sign question mark
by krghospitality krghospitality No Comments

What in the CDC Guidance…?

What in the CDC Guidance…?

by David Klemt

Red neon sign question mark

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is once again offering Covid-19 guidance and this time it’s taking a sharp turn.

One big takeaway is that nobody was really expecting the agency’s abrupt and surprising advice.

Also, the CDC’s updates are confusing a lot of people. So much so, in fact, that the agency is “shaking up” communications personnel.

Changing Guidelines

Clearly, the CDC’s statements toward the end of last week are shocking. The agency caught states and businesses completely off guard.

Business owners, workers and the public are unsure how to interpret the CDC’s new advice. Unfortunately, that seems to indicate that perhaps the agency didn’t take the time to really dial in their message before addressing the nation.

We’ve dealt with constant shifts in guidance for more than a year now. There’s little wonder that so many Americans are experiencing Covid-19 fatigue and skepticism.

It’s fair to say that when the CDC announced updated guidelines last week, people threw their hands up in frustration.

Obviously, the messaging was haphazard since so many attempts at clarification have taken place over the course of just a few days.

So, what’s the agency saying now?

Vague at Best

Last Thursday, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the current CDC director, said this:

“Anyone who is fully vaccinated can participate in indoor and outdoor activities, large or small, without wearing a mask or physical distancing. If you are fully vaccinated, you can start doing the things that you had stopped doing because of the pandemic.”

Which, okay—great. Seems like a simple bit of direction, right?

Obviously, no—not that simple. Yesterday, Dr. Walensky had to clarify the CDC’s newest guidance:

“This is not permission for widespread removal of masks. We were going to get to the point in the pandemic where the vaccinated could take off their masks.”

The Details, Kinda

In short, the new advice is aimed toward those who are fully vaccinated. To review, a person is considered to be fully vaccinated:

  • two weeks after receiving the second dose of a two-dose regimen (Pfizer, Moderna); or
  • two weeks after receiving a dose of a one-dose vaccine (Johnson & Johnson).

Last week, Dr. Walensky said that fully vaccinated people no longer needed to wear masks or practice social distancing outdoors or indoors. Of course, caveats followed immediately, leading many people to criticize the guidance as vague and, to put it bluntly, unhelpful.

The caveats? The fully vaccinated should still wear masks in crowded settings like airports, airplanes, buses and other public transportation, hospitals, homeless shelters. Also, they should continue following the guidance of their employers and local businesses.

Sifting Through the Confusion

In a nutshell, what the CDC is saying is that fully vaccinated people can return to a semblance of their normal pre-pandemic lives.

This is likely an attempt, however slap-dash or ham-fisted, to incentivize the unvaccinated to get their shots. It’s also probably another attempt at rebooting the economy.

One problem with this new guidance is that it’s vague. People still have questions, and the CDC appears to be fine with deferring to business owners. That means, once again, front-line workers have to police mask wearing and social distancing.

Our industry has been forced to shove staff into awkward and hostile situations and confrontations for over a year now. Shifting guidance and recommendations routinely give short shrift to this facet of working during the pandemic.

Another problem with the CDC’s latest guidance? We have no way of knowing who’s actually vaccinated. Because of this, many business owners are keeping mask and social distancing rules in place to protect their staff and guests. This is no doubt already leading to uncomfortable confrontations.

Staff who can’t get vaccinated for medical or religious reasons are also now being put at risk. Since we’re relying on the “honor system” regarding mask wearing and distancing, unvaccinated workers face greater risk of exposure from unvaccinated guests.

Lack of Industry-specific Guidance

We’re still learning about Covid-19. We’re still attempting to figure out best practices. And we’re still balancing the need to keep businesses open while protecting workers and the public.

But the CDC’s latest guidance isn’t helpful. Essentially, the agency is putting the onus of their recommendations on business owners and state and local policymakers. And, of course, the CDC hasn’t put forth specific guidance for restaurants, bars and other hospitality industry businesses.

The National Restaurant Association responded to the CDC’s update by saying that “restaurant operators have the option of determining how best to enforce the new guidance,” and that they wouldn’t be updating their own Covid-19 Operating Guidance just yet. Also, the NRA stated that operators would be wise to continue to work with state and local regulatory bodies to avoid falling afoul of any mandates.

Next Steps

Operators will now have to review their Covid-19 protocols, the guidance and rules in place in their local jurisdictions, and determine what’s required and what’s best for their staff. They should also consider doing the following:

  • Inform staff about mask, social distancing, and other Covid-19 protocols, whether they’re being kept in place, adjusted or rescinded.
  • Ask staff about their comfort levels in terms of serving guests who aren’t required to wear masks at all during their visits. It’s not just guest comfort that’s important.
  • Owners and managers need to let staff know they have their backs if they’ll be enforcing protocols.
  • Ownership and management must provethey’re backing up their teams. If operators think they’re facing labor challenges now, they’ll struggle even harder if they fail to back up workers who are tasked with informing guests that Covid protocols are in place.
  • Operators should make their protocols known—if they’re still in place—on social, their websites, via email, and in-person so there are no surprises when guests arrive.

Once again, business owners are left to deal with the aftermath of the CDC’s “recommendations.” Now more than ever, guest-facing staff need to be supported.

Image: Simone Secci on Unsplash

Piggy bank wearing a face mask
by David Klemt David Klemt No Comments

Tell the Government to Refill the RRF

Tell the Government to Refill the RRF

by David Klemt

Piggy bank wearing a face mask

The National Restaurant Association is urging restaurant, bar and other hospitality operators to sign a Restaurant Revitalization Fund petition.

Put concisely, the NRA’s petition asks the federal government to replenish the RRF.

Grants are going out and there’s no guarantee the $28.6 billion fund is enough for every eligible business. Therefore, the NRA is calling for more funds.

The Petition

Now, there is good news regarding the RRF. Per the Small Business Administration, 21,000 applicants have received $2.7 billion in grants.

However, when one considers that well over 180,000 grant applications were submitted within the first 48 hours, the $28.6 billion will more than likely run out before every eligible business receives a grant. The first 16,000 grants alone total $2 billion.

According to one source, priority applications carry a value of approximately $29 billion. Obviously, that’s more money than is in the fund.

And that’s only the value of applications receiving priority for the first 21 days. Clearly, more funding is necessary.

As the NRA’s petition states, “We are urging policymakers in Washington—from the White House to Capitol Hill—to replenish the RRF to maximize relief for small independent and franchise restaurant operators. Americans can’t wait to get back into their favorite restaurant with their family and friends, and the federal government can play a key role in making that a reality.”

Click here to sign the NRA’s petition. Our industry is the hardest hit by the pandemic and every eligible business deserves funding.

It’s not that this industry isn’t grateful—it’s that hundreds of thousands of businesses are fighting to stay alive. They’ve been doing so for more than a year.

The RRF

The SBA’s RRF portal link is https://restaurants.sba.gov. Alternatively, operations can use a POS that’s an SBA partner to apply. Partner systems include Clover, NCR, Square, and Toast.

According to the SBA website, certain eligible entities will be given priority.

For the first 21 days the application process is open, priority will go to small businesses with a minimum of 51 percent ownership by women, veterans or socially disadvantaged people.

The application process should open to every applicant on Monday, May 24. For more in-depth information, operators can follow the appropriate links to review the Small Business Administration’s RRF program guide and sample application.

Applicants do not need to register with SAM.gov (System for Award Management) or provide DUNS or CAGE identifiers.

To calculate a grant amount, an applicant subtracts 2020 gross receipts from 2019 gross receipts. Applicants must deduct first-draw PPP and second-draw PPP loans. Any economic disaster loans—Economic Injury Disaster Loans, for example—are not RRF deductions.

Again, please click here to sign the NRA’s petition today.

Image: Konstantin Evdokimov on Unsplash

Applebee's restaurant with censored, pixelated sign
by krghospitality krghospitality No Comments

International Chain Slashes Menu

International Chain Slashes Menu

by David Klemt

Applebee's Grill & Bar casual dining restaurant

If you’re curious as to whether “lean and mean” menus are here to stay as a result of the pandemic, look no further than one international chain.

Moving forward, Applebee’s Grill + Bar menus will be some 60 items lighter.

The chain’s menu will be 38 percent smaller, and the change is permanent.

Significant Overhaul

Of course, it isn’t like the Applebee’s menu is tiny now. At about 100 items, it’s still larger than most independent restaurant menus. For contrast, KRG Hospitality president Doug Radkey, in most cases, recommends 12- to 32-item food menus.

Still, the casual dining chain cutting 60 items permanently is a big move.

The decision is a direct result of the pandemic and the toll it took on Applebee’s and the industry overall. Unfortunately, like many operators big and small, chain and independent, the chain had to furlough staff. Lightening the menu made it easier for the chain to adapt and shift toward takeout and delivery.

Weak performers and complex items that affect efficiency are gone. According to John Cywinski, Applebee’s president, the decision means faster ticket times, more consistency, and better efficiency.

Among the 60 or so items that are no longer available: the triple cheeseburger, clam chowder, and BBQ brisket tacos.

Streamline Summer

The decision to eliminate dozens of complex and lagging items puts Applebee’s in a better position for Summer 2021, potentially.

Speaking with CNN Business, Cywinski said, “The team will have to be very thoughtful about every single product or beverage they introduce, and the consequence of it from a complexity standpoint.”

That thoughtful approach is crucial in large part because of Applebee’s new menu policy: When a new item comes onto the menu, an old item must go.

Accordingly, Applebee’s can remain innovative while avoiding once again inflating their menus.

With demand for social interaction, a return to normalcy, and in-person restaurant and bar visits set to explode, Applebee’s finds itself with a menu that’s nearly 40-percent smaller. That should make it simpler for the chain’s restaurant and bar teams to fill orders quickly, efficiently, and consistently.

Menu Refresh

Every operator needs to know their numbers. That doesn’t just mean costs and inventory, by the way.

Do you know the cook times for each food item on your menu? Do you know how many dishes you can make with a given ingredient? Is thoughtful cross-utilization an important element of your F&B operations?

The answers to those questions can help you identify bottlenecks in your operation and become more agile.

Another important question to consider: Do you know which menu items are your slowest sellers? If you do, answer this: Why are they still on your menu?

When you eliminate an item, yes, some guests will express their disappointment. You’ll have to weigh the costs of keeping a poor performer against freeing up resources by losing an item that rarely sells. You may even identify an item that you personally love but just doesn’t move. Again, you have to do what’s best for your bottom line.

You may not have 160 items on your menu. You may not have 100. That doesn’t mean you don’t have at least a handful of items that you can eliminate to reduce costs and increase revenue.

Image: Applebee’s Grill + Bar

Covid-19 vaccine vials
by David Klemt David Klemt No Comments

Can You Fire Staff for Refusing Vaccine?

Can You Fire Staff for Refusing Vaccine?

by David Klemt

Covid-19 vaccine vials

Can an employer terminate a staff member’s employment for refusing the Covid-19 vaccine? Current court cases seek an answer to that question.

Conversely, there are bills up for consideration in some states that aim to ban vaccine mandates.

Therefore, the current answer to the question of whether employer vaccine mandates are legal isn’t clear, yet.

It’s also important to note that this question is up for legal examination in Canada and America.

Are Employers Really Mandating Vaccines?

Of course. Well, some are. And it’s bound to continue until the question has been tested in court.

Looking at Canada, Ontario’s Ministry of Labour says employers can, in fact, make vaccines mandatory. They can also (for now, at least) demand proof of vaccination from their employees. Failing to answer the question or lying about can result in an employee losing their job.

However, the ministry acknowledges that legal and ethical issues come hand in hand with blanket vaccination mandates.

In America, the issue is no less thorny, to put it mildly.

Per a survey by Arizona State University and the Rockefeller Foundation, almost 90 percent of employers in the USA (and UK) have plans to “encourage or require vaccination for employees.”

Encouraging, of course, stands in stark contrast to requiring in a legal, ethical and moral sense.

That same survey suggests that most US employers—two-thirds—plan to use vaccination incentives rather than mandates. However, 44 percent say they’ll implement mandates if incentives don’t work. Just one-third of survey respondents say they don’t intend to require vaccinations as a term of employment.

Legal Challenges

Vaccine requirements and credentials (“vaccine passports”) have been banned in Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Montana, Texas and South Dakota.

Bills have been introduced in at least half of American states that seek to “limit mandatory COVID-19 vaccines,” per the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Lawsuits have been filed by workers in various industries in several states, including New Mexico and California.

It’s likely just a matter of time until the Supreme Court of the United States is at least asked to settle the matter of vaccine mandates.

Currently, attorneys and agencies say that employers need to inform employees of the consequences for refusing Covid-19 vaccination, including loss of employment; put a vaccination policy in place and communicate it with all employees; and include religious and medical exemptions.

That said, this matter is a long way from settled.

Could vs. Should

One thing is clear: It’s not clear yet whether employers can terminate employees for refusing vaccination. We can expect a flurry of lawsuits either way.

However, it’s important that operators realize this isn’t solely a legal question. This is in no small part a leadership question, and it’s a tough one.

As the saying goes, just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.

Operators must consider the ramifications of vaccine mandates. Moving forward, some guests may only support businesses that require vaccination for staff. Conversely, some guests may find such a requirement discriminatory and offensive, and they may boycott businesses with vaccine mandates.

It’s a difficult position for operators and staff. Our industry puts employees and the public in direct, close contact with each other. Team members are likewise in very close quarters. Close interactions for prolonged periods can spread any number of viruses, not just Covid-19.

The instinct to protect staff, their family and friends, and the public is common among operators. The past twelve-plus months have strengthened that resolve.

Incentivizing Instead

Requiring vaccination may exacerbate the current labor shortage.

Yes, there are some employees and potential new hires who will feel more comfortable knowing their coworkers have been vaccinated. However, there are also people who will refuse to work for an employer who requires vaccination. A mandate could damage recruiting severely as word gets around.

It’s reasonable to suggest that operators are best off implementing a vaccination incentive program rather than a mandate. Most people would likely agree that encouragement rather than requirement, at least regarding this topic, shows greater emotional intelligence, a cornerstone of leadership.

The CEO of the Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas reportedly hit their minimum goal of an 80-percent vaccination rate among staff last week. The resort’s incentive program offered bonus payments (among other incentives) for vaccinated employees set up in tiers:

  • 60 Percent Vaccination Rate: $50
  • 70 Percent Vaccination Rate: $100
  • 80 Percent Vaccination Rate: $250
  • 90 Percent Vaccination Rate: $350
  • 100 Percent Vaccination Rate: $500

That program helped the company hit their goal in just a few weeks. Operators can certainly use the Cosmo as a model for encouraging vaccinations instead of requiring them. Ultimately, the choice is up to the individual operator. It isn’t an easy one.

Disclaimer

This content is for informational purposes only, and should not be used as legal or other advice. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor does any information constitute a comprehensive or complete statement of the matters discussed or the law. This information is of a general nature and does not address the circumstances of a specific individual or entity. The reader of this information alone assumes the sole responsibility of evaluating the merits and risks associated with the use of any information before making any decisions based on such information.

Image: Braňo on Unsplash

Top