If the availability of their product to low-income people is a priority for the current owner, it might be possible to maintain that while raising cash prices by offering menial temp work (such as dishwashing) in exchange for store credit. This is a well-known strategy among restaurants looking to settle accounts with someone who has already eaten but proves unable to pay; the innovative part would be offering a more favorable rate of exchange, and work first for food later.
If jobs are scarce, the restaurant should already have enough dishwashers. Since the restaurant can’t temporarily fire one of its existing dishwashers for a week in order to have the nonpaying customer wash dishes, it’s hard for the restaurant to recover the money in free labor from the customer. It only works if the restaurant happens to have a job of the right length available I’d expect that to be pretty unlikely. Better just call the police. As a bonus, if you call the police you don’t create perverse incentives for more people to stiff you on the bill in the future.
I realize your version of the story doesn’t include this, but I’ve often heard it as the restaurant giving the guy a permanent dishwashing job, and sometimes even having the guy rise up in rank and eventually come to own the restaurant. This version is even unlikelier. (For instance, if the restaurant thinks a guy hired this way is better than a guy hired through the normal application process, why do they even have an application process? And if you’re in a situation where jobs are scarce, then jobs are valuable things and the restaurant should be able to be very selective in who it hires.)
Of course it’s less efficient than hiring an equivalent number of professional dishwashers; the point is to extract more value from the customers by having them choose between paying extra or doing marginally useful work, rather than standing in line.
I realize your version of the story doesn’t include this, but I’ve often heard it as the restaurant giving the guy a permanent dishwashing job, and sometimes even having the guy rise up in rank and eventually come to own the restaurant. This version is even unlikelier. (For instance, if the restaurant thinks a guy hired this way is better than a guy hired through the normal application process, why do they even have an application process? And if you’re in a situation where jobs are scarce, then jobs are valuable things and the restaurant should be able to be very selective in who it hires.)
I can’t speak to whether there are any real instances of such a thing happening (the story is only vaguely familiar, I may not even have heard it before,) and I suspect it’s more likely than not apocryphal. But the answer to “if the restaurant thinks a guy hired this way is better than a guy hired through the normal application process, why do they even have an application process?” would be “because a single specimen does not invalidate a selection process that deals in generalities.” The application process is an attempt at sorting prospective workers to select those who are most likely to be valuable to your business, but that’s not to say either that some duds won’t get through (people routinely make it through application processes only to be fired for poor performance, after all,) or that a less stringent selection process cannot induct good workers.
If the availability of their product to low-income people is a priority for the current owner, it might be possible to maintain that while raising cash prices by offering menial temp work (such as dishwashing) in exchange for store credit. This is a well-known strategy among restaurants looking to settle accounts with someone who has already eaten but proves unable to pay; the innovative part would be offering a more favorable rate of exchange, and work first for food later.
If jobs are scarce, the restaurant should already have enough dishwashers. Since the restaurant can’t temporarily fire one of its existing dishwashers for a week in order to have the nonpaying customer wash dishes, it’s hard for the restaurant to recover the money in free labor from the customer. It only works if the restaurant happens to have a job of the right length available I’d expect that to be pretty unlikely. Better just call the police. As a bonus, if you call the police you don’t create perverse incentives for more people to stiff you on the bill in the future.
I realize your version of the story doesn’t include this, but I’ve often heard it as the restaurant giving the guy a permanent dishwashing job, and sometimes even having the guy rise up in rank and eventually come to own the restaurant. This version is even unlikelier. (For instance, if the restaurant thinks a guy hired this way is better than a guy hired through the normal application process, why do they even have an application process? And if you’re in a situation where jobs are scarce, then jobs are valuable things and the restaurant should be able to be very selective in who it hires.)
Of course it’s less efficient than hiring an equivalent number of professional dishwashers; the point is to extract more value from the customers by having them choose between paying extra or doing marginally useful work, rather than standing in line.
I can’t speak to whether there are any real instances of such a thing happening (the story is only vaguely familiar, I may not even have heard it before,) and I suspect it’s more likely than not apocryphal. But the answer to “if the restaurant thinks a guy hired this way is better than a guy hired through the normal application process, why do they even have an application process?” would be “because a single specimen does not invalidate a selection process that deals in generalities.” The application process is an attempt at sorting prospective workers to select those who are most likely to be valuable to your business, but that’s not to say either that some duds won’t get through (people routinely make it through application processes only to be fired for poor performance, after all,) or that a less stringent selection process cannot induct good workers.