COMMENT: If chefs can’t stand the heat it’s best not to tweet the fact

thisisoxfordshire: COMMENT: If chefs can’t stand the heat it’s best not to tweet the fact COMMENT: If chefs can’t stand the heat it’s best not to tweet the fact

JIM KNIGHT is this morning enjoying fleeting fame in the twittersphere as the little chef who stood up to his unreasonable bosses.

However, it is likely that he will live to regret boiling over and hijacking The Plough pub’s Twitter account to broadcast his dispute over a request to work Christmas Day and Sundays.

While Mr Knight’s rant may have amused many on Twitter, the danger is that he is very likely to find future employment in the catering industry a little hard to come by.

The story goes that Mr Knight was taken on as head chef at The Plough in Great Haseley, but then baulked at the request to work on Christmas Day, partly, it would seem, because he has a baby daughter.

He is well within his rights to decide if a job and its demands are not for him, but after the parting of the ways with The Plough, Mr Knight used the pub’s Twitter account to have what he thought would be a final say, revealing what he thought was unreasonable behaviour.

For many, working Christmas Day would, indeed, seem unreasonable. But, unfortunately, it is part and parcel of the unsociable hours that go with the territory for many professions.

How else do you expect the turkey, roasties and Christmas pud to get on the plate for those sitting down at The Plough or other eateries across the county?

Let us also remember The Plough is a pub owned by the local community rather than the outpost of some nasty corporate monster that chews up its employees.

Simply, you can’t blame everyone else if you can’t stand the heat in the kitchen.

Comments (3)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:59am Tue 17 Dec 13

Madi50n says...

I am afraid this Editorial Comment is all too spot on. Jim Knight may have wanted to spend his child's first Christmas at home, and I understand that as well as any parent.

However, he works in the catering industry, and Christmas Day is a working day. My parents owned a restaurant and they worked Christmas day, and when I was a teenager, so did I. The same applied to Easter, Summer, Half-term and term-time Holidays. That was the business my parents were in and those were the days you made the most money.

His outburst on twitter was ridiculous; he may have been angry at what he believed was the owners' unreasonable attitude, and he should have tried to resolve that professionally, but he didn't, he threw his toys out of the pram and made it impossible for any future employer to consider him.

What now for him? Is he simply going to remove his employment at The Plough from his CV? How does he explain the gap. He certainly can't hide his exploits, they are all over twitter and the media.

I am afraid, Mr Knight may have just put the Kibosh on his career as a chef, I am certain that if my parents were still employers now and Mr Knight's CV turned up in response to a job advert, it would go straight in the pile marked, "Not a chance."
I am afraid this Editorial Comment is all too spot on. Jim Knight may have wanted to spend his child's first Christmas at home, and I understand that as well as any parent. However, he works in the catering industry, and Christmas Day is a working day. My parents owned a restaurant and they worked Christmas day, and when I was a teenager, so did I. The same applied to Easter, Summer, Half-term and term-time Holidays. That was the business my parents were in and those were the days you made the most money. His outburst on twitter was ridiculous; he may have been angry at what he believed was the owners' unreasonable attitude, and he should have tried to resolve that professionally, but he didn't, he threw his toys out of the pram and made it impossible for any future employer to consider him. What now for him? Is he simply going to remove his employment at The Plough from his CV? How does he explain the gap. He certainly can't hide his exploits, they are all over twitter and the media. I am afraid, Mr Knight may have just put the Kibosh on his career as a chef, I am certain that if my parents were still employers now and Mr Knight's CV turned up in response to a job advert, it would go straight in the pile marked, "Not a chance." Madi50n

2:23pm Tue 17 Dec 13

terrycollmann says...

What a miserable pair of modern Scrooges you are. The man asked for one Christmas day off to spend with his newborn child - a day that is, after all, all about a newborn child - he gets sacked for it, and you sympathise with the sacker? You're just the sort of people Dickens was writing about. Oh, and he didn't "hijack" the account, he set it up in the first place.
What a miserable pair of modern Scrooges you are. The man asked for one Christmas day off to spend with his newborn child - a day that is, after all, all about a newborn child - he gets sacked for it, and you sympathise with the sacker? You're just the sort of people Dickens was writing about. Oh, and he didn't "hijack" the account, he set it up in the first place. terrycollmann

5:23pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Sid Hunt says...

The rather juvenile 'editorial' and the two posts above are based solely on the chef's version of events. The landlord states that the chef announced he would no longer be working Sundays as well as not working Christmas Day, therefore, becomes unviable as far as the business is concerned.

If the job was awarded with both parties aware of the duties and attendance requirements then, quite clearly, the chef is in the wrong. If the requirements were not specific and agreed by both parties then the landlord is in the wrong for employing the person.

Either way, the chef has done himself no favours by his 'revenge' actions and, if untrue, has also potentially libelled his former employer.
The rather juvenile 'editorial' and the two posts above are based solely on the chef's version of events. The landlord states that the chef announced he would no longer be working Sundays as well as not working Christmas Day, therefore, becomes unviable as far as the business is concerned. If the job was awarded with both parties aware of the duties and attendance requirements then, quite clearly, the chef is in the wrong. If the requirements were not specific and agreed by both parties then the landlord is in the wrong for employing the person. Either way, the chef has done himself no favours by his 'revenge' actions and, if untrue, has also potentially libelled his former employer. Sid Hunt

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree