Serving it up both ways

HootersAnother dream bites the dust. Dang. I don’t make a lot of money, but I like going out to eat as much as the next person. When I can get a low-priced, tasty meal at a great restaurant, I’ve gotten my money’s worth. I call this place Hooters.

Hooters. Yes, Hooters. That paragon of the restaurant world. A string of lawsuits recently brought against the food chain may bring the fun to an end at Hooters. At first I thought some militant feminist group was trying to destroy the whole concept of Hooters by forcing the owners to also hire men as waiters. Then I found out that it was a group of guys that were responsible.

Let’s face it — Hooters wasn’t given its name because it has an owl for a mascot. Hooters was founded in 1983 by a group of guys who thought it would be cool to start up a restaurant where the food was served by highly attractive women. This was, in essence, to be one of the last remaining outposts where men could hang out in a “manly” atmosphere.

Now a bunch of guys want to go and ruin all this? What are they thinking?

Seriously, why would a group of men want to work in a place like Hooters? This isn’t about equality; it’s about common sense. When you figure that the patronage of the restaurant is primarily male, what possible incentive is there? It’s like a bunch of girls applying for positions at Chippendale’s.

“The girls know how to take your order just right, and they talk to you just right,” said Charles Combs in an interview with The Associated Press, who goes to the Hooters in Tampa three days a week. “No guy can be friendly to me and make me want to come back.”

Apparently, the hiring policy at Hooters is a raging national issue, right alongside organized crime and drugs. Why else would the federal government spend millions of taxpayer dollars to investigate several “complaints?” The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission tried to levy a $22 million fine against Hooters.

Has this nation flown completely out the window? Let’s look at a couple of facts:

  • Unless Hooters is a subdivision of the U.S. Senate, it’s privately owned.
  • The name of the restaurant chain is called Hooters.
  • The basic premise of Hooters is to have attractive ladies in skimpy outfits serve (mostly) men food.

Now, keeping those facts in mind, I assume that Hooters has the ability to hire and fire whomever they wish. This follows the concept of a private company. Now since the restaurant is also called Hooters, and the servers are women, it seems kind of illogical to hire men, doesn’t it?

If you are a man with large breasts, I’d advise against trying to get a job at Hooters. I am a firm believer that the government should not interfere with the hiring and firing processes of privately owned firms. Ideally, the best person for the job should get the job, and an employer can release someone who is performing substandard work. However, with all the employment and equal opportunity laws that companies must abide by, the hiring might as well be done by the government. And we all know how well it does its job.

The four Chicago men who wanted to serve customers are misguided. No logic can justify their actions. This is political correctness at its absolute lamest. Still, Hooter’s was forced to pay $2 million in restitution to these guys. People don’t get the job every day, and I doubt they are that emotionally bruised over the situation.

“We’ve settled the entire issue,” said Mike McNeil in an interview with The Associated Press, vice president of marketing for Hooters. “(The settlement) preserves the integrity of the Hooters concept — the service of food and beverages will continue to be performed by the Hooters girls.”

I admit it. I go to Hooters every once in a while. It’s fun. But how fun will it be when I see some burly, mustached guy named Guido saddle up to the table and take my order?