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.
Well, we agree that it’s “his call” to come out of the closet and announce that he’s a pervert and that he wants his employees to dress like whores for him. If he tried to pull that on my daughter, if he asked my daughter to dress like a whore for him, I’d cure him with a scalpel. She’s just asking for the cost of the transition he’s forced her to make.