Marks and Spencer support new Hooters in Bristol, #2

[sethstarkaddersmum]

I went to post on the first thread but it was full so here is a new one.

I'm reposting Jessinavalon's OP from 10th September since it explains what is going on, for anyone who is new to the issue:

'Dear all
This is my first post on here so I hope I am doing this right!

I live in Bristol and, last week, 'Hooters' was granted a licence to open in the city centre. The site is virtually opposite 3 apartment blocks, the lower floors of which are social housing and children are living in them.

What's most disappointing is that Marks and Spencer are leasing the site to 'Hooters'. They have been e-mailed by many concerned people to ask if they will reconsider leasing the building but they have just replied saying it is a "commercial decision" (as if that makes it ok!). In Sheffield, a 'Hooters' didn't even make it to application stage because the developer (Ask Pizza) realised that it would be better not to be associated with a company like 'Hooters'.

Marks and Spencer don't seem that concerned, however. Although they have signed up to the "Let Girls Be Girls" Mumsnet campaign they are not concerned about a company which sells merchandise including babygros which say "Future Hooters Girl" and "Does my butt look big in this?"

I have written to Marks and Spencer telling them that I won't be shopping in their stores again. If you feel strongly about this, please e-mail:

[email protected].

'Hooters' tries to sell itself as a family friendly restaurant but it is anything but. The Hooters in Nottingham attracts mainly stag parties and football fans. Hooters Girls take part in bikini contests and iced wet t-shirt competitions (the t-shirts are put in the freezers before the girls wear them). 'Hooters' has links to Playboy magazine....I could go on.....

I think Marks and Spencer should be shamed for facilitating this company's expansion into Bristol. They are selling women and girls down the river by leasing to this company and all just to make a "quick buck".

Thanks everyone.'

I am intrigued by this company's mix of arrogance and fear. On the one hand, they are confident enough of being granted a licence that they will start recruiting nearly 9 months before being granted a licence, and, on the other hand, they aren't confident enough in public opinion to allow the full facts of the application to be included like, say, Jamie Oliver's recent application.

I challenge the company to be more open next time. After all, if there are no valid objections in law, they have nothing to worry about.

Did you watch Undercover Boss USA? all about ~Hooters, completely glosses over misogyny and appalling treatment of staff....poorly disguised PR. Hooters girls on the street hearing that they're being exploited, a manager who asks girls to eat beans bent over a table with no hands to see who is allowed to leave early/on time (his punishment was to apologise, the board were worried about keeping his career on track, the Boss didn't speak to any of the obviously distressed 'girls' afterwards). Keen to show a female manager who found the job stressful but coping they gave her and her dds a holiday but then the end line was that she'd taken a less demanding role, wtf? In comparison to the UK one it was terrible.

Bin people can Google too, you know!

I still don?t see how the brand name of the outlet is important in a licencing context. The application notice tells you who the applicant is and what activities they want to licence.

No Idea what will happen to the pregnant Hooters girl. If she feels she?s been treated unfairly, then there are plenty of lawyers who could help. Might even be an interesting test of the new Equality Act.

You know, Jamie?s Italian don?t specify what the wait staff will wear. I think it?s safe to assume that it won?t involve orange hot-pants, but why should the licencing committee care? What does it have to do with the licencing objectives?

If ?Mr David Hubbins? was to apply for a licence for ?Uranus, 2 High Street, Anytown? would you have any idea how I was planning to dress the waiters? As long as it?s not indecent, then frankly its none of your business how I expect my staff to dress.

It?s neither arrogance nor fear ? it?s just business. I?m sure they were always confident of getting the licence, but probably though omitting the Hooters name would make for a smoother ride. They might have been right on this occasion, but I don?t think this this tactic will continue to work.
I?ve just watched Undercover Boss USA. I still think the publicity is priceless for a brand like that.

Do you think they will include the name in the next application (which will be where, btw?)?

You must be a senior bin man to get to go to the US and even other UK cities on business, and get to stay in a hotel and visit the local Hooters inbetween binman business meetings!

Jess, did you watch Hooters? USA undercover Boss.

Hi PosieParker
I'm watching it now. I've posted on the other thread about it. I'm speechless!

Good to know that the sales of the company are down though!

JIA

Interesting article about Hooters' current fortunes (not looking so good!).

Bnet article about Hooters: Hooters is ready for a boob job

cool!

I'm gonna go for... yes, they will use the name, and the next application will be in...wait for it... Southampton!

I don?t think they will go for the Midlands or the North as this is where they have failed previously. New franchisee might also want to keep some distance between himself and the original Nottingham franchise. London is too high profile and rents probably too high.

If not Southampton, then perhaps another large south coast city like Portsmouth or maybe even Plymouth. I?d also say M4 corridor is a good bet ? Swindon or Reading

You got me, I?m not really a bin man. No flies on you are there?

Please don't let the Hooters virus infect Plymouth...that's my hometown. It's bad enough that it's in the city where I'm living now.

So if you're not a bin man, what are you then?

Does Hooters make you happy, David?

Does it matter what I do for a living?

Does Hooters make me happy? Not as much as it makes you mad!

I'm interested in what you do. I think we all are.

Hooters doesn't make me mad. It makes me feel ill. And that's just the chicken wings.

Misogyny and sexism make me angry.

You didn't give me any thoughts on the pregnant waitress. Could you surmise on Hooters maternity policy?

Sorry Jess I'm really not interested in him. "Self-conscious air of mystery" is nearly always code for "deeply boring" IME :o

Why don't you surmise, but assume I don't work for Hooters?

Hooters maternity policy is a tricky one.If I must surmise, here goes:

Pregnancy is a protected characteristic, as is gender. Clearly, a pregnant woman is no less capable of waiting on tables than any other woman, or indeed a man.

I reckon that Hooters will say that you cant 'play the role' of 'Hooters Girl' if you are visibly pregnant. My guess is that Hooters would use the defence of a Genuine Occupational Qualification (or whatever it's called under the Equality Act)

Would they fire a pregnant woman? Who knows, its not as if it doesn't happen elsewhere. They could always find a pretext

As I've said before, until someone takes them on in court, we'l never know.

Am I the only one who's that DaveStGubbins is taking the piss out of bin men, as though they're a separate class of people to his superior self

THat "Hooters is ready for a boob job" article made my day

"Hooters CEO Coby Brooks, the founder?s son, was the focus on last Sunday?s episode of the CBS reality show Undercover Boss. Clips circulating on YouTube show what he learned: The managers are boobs (pun intended) who mistreat and humiliate the Hooters girls (no!). Featured highlight: the manager randomly decides the women must have a no-hands eating contest if they want to leave early. Well, maybe nobody watched ? oh, wait, the debut episode of the show aired right after the Super Bowl. It promoted the following week?s Hooters episode, and more than 10 million people watched it. (For extra irony points, the Hooters episode was shown on Valentine?s Day.)"

Can these misogynistic pigs get any worse?

Widow's settlement threatens livelihood of Hooters' girls

What the article is saying, is that when the founder died in 2006, the widow he left behind got a small share of his assets, along with numerous other family members, 10% to Clemton university, and 30% to each of his children. This means that the son couldn't take over mafiosi style and now has to look around for investors.

The article is making out that ALL the damage is being done BY this poor widow!!!. As though the grieving widow is personally taking the bread out of the mouths of the Hooters girls.
The damage being done TO women BY this company is not important, apparently. As for the widow, they should let her rot: Long LIve Hooters!

Hi Elephants
I know. I'm with you to a degree. But I also think that, as he's still hanging around, we might as well make use of him. He is obviously connected to Hooters in some way (I think we established that on day one) as otherwise he wouldn't still be hanging around here and anyone who just likes a debate could go on AIBU!

It is amusing that the Hooters machine still feels the need to have someone monitoring Mumsnet when the place is opening next week. Quite what he'd be hoping to find out, I don't know, as I'm hardly likely to post anything on here for the Hooters management to see.

Unless the brief is still just to keep an eye on us and try to derail discussions as much as possible.

I think it's probably a combinatation of the two. Either way, it seems a bit pointless now as the place is opening and, as DSH has pointed out, there isn't a lot we can do it about it unfortunately, and I'm not going to be shouting about anything we may or may not be planning in relation to Hooters on a public forum.

So might as well make use of his extensive knowledge of licensing legislation!

So...back to the maternity question, DSH....on what basis could Hooters claim that being a Hooters girl is a GOQ? Is it entertainment or just a waitressing job? Hooters can't seem to make up its mind!

'I'm interested in what you do. I think we all are.'

me neither. I have long since concluded his life is more boring than mine and as I'm a SAHM with 3 under 6 that's saying something!

I assume the mandatory uniform in xxs, xs and s wouldn't fit a pregnant tummy and therefore the girl couldn't work once she's showing.

I'm interested in relation to Hooters. Exactly what he does for a day job or with his spare time, no! I don't generally associate with misogynists in RL and try not to online.

Cue DSH arguing that he's not a misogynist. I'm much more interested in the maternity policy/GOQ question, btw David. Any chance you post a link to the company maternity policy here?

I agree Posie, but I wonder how the company gets around that when it happens.

David, can you help?