That’s just baloney. This employer participates in setting standards in the industry. Would he reduce expenses by no longer washing dishes if his competitor across the street did? Show me a study that concludes that a restaurant can’t survive unless it looks like a whorehouse.
This lady invested years of her life in this business. She is fully justified in refusing to be treated like a whore and if the transition caused by her employer’s sudden decision to play pimp causes her some losses, she’s got a valid claim as far as I am concerned.
There’s no baloney about it. This employer can read the trades and see the money. You want a study here you go:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/24/breastaurant-boom-hooters-style-eateries-experience-mini-boom/
“The nation’s top three “breastaurant” chains behind Hooters each had sales growth of 30 percent or more last year, according to Technomic, a food industry research firm. They still represent less than 1 percent of the nation’s top restaurants, but the upstart chains are benefitting as other mid-priced options like Applebee’s and Bennigan’s have experienced declines during the economic downturn.”
Now if you’re a restaurant owner which do you want to sign up for 30% growth or decline? The answer is pretty easy.
The employee is fully justified in refusing to make the change. But that means leaving the company. Her employer’s decision didn’t cause her any losses, HER decision did. SHE decided not to make the change with the restaurant. Her call, not his. He decided he’d rather sign up for 30% growth, the smart business decision, she opted not to. Which is a valid call for her to make, but it was her decision that cost her money, not his. His decision would have given her money.