I am finding it increasingly disturbing at the library that students from the a certain part of the world all get together at a big table and argue about things like whether people from certain countries should be killed in wars. Today one person, who said she was from Pakistan, was arguing that people from certain countries are "asking for war" and defending there being wars in the Middle East. I also hear constant arguing about Gaza, Palestine, and Israel, and it always gets very loud.
Keep the damn war where it belongs, and that is not in Canada. This is a country of peace, and we don't need arguments between ethnic groups playing out in university libraries, especially when people are trying to study. If you really hate a country that much and think people in that country should die because your grandparents' family was killed by people from that country, keep it to yourself. At the very least, go somewhere other than the library and argue about it.
I'm all for freedom of speech, but not only is there a time and a place, I also do not want to hear how much you hate certain countries and their people.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Bad Service at The Wave?
There has been an interesting argument between a disgruntled customer and the wait staff of The Wave, a Western campus bar and home of Rick McGhie, playing out in The Gazette over the past month.
In the February 12th issue, Nicole Borst wrote about her experience dining at The Wave. A response written by three waitresses at The Wave appeared in the March 5th issue - interestingly almost a month after the fact.
Both parties are correct on some points. Borst contends she and her friend were "seated by a visibly sick server who proceeded to cough on her hands and subsequently provide us with cutlery." The waitresses' response did not even touch the issue of sanitary food practices. Although I cannot speak for The Wave, from my experience with The Spoke (which is co-owned with The Wave) hygene is not even a part of the corporate culture. On several occasions I have gone to The Spoke, I have seen servers wiping their nose on their hands, and then proceeding to handle food without any attempt at handwashing. I fully believe Borst on this point about a server coughing on the cutlery.
What is the waitresses' attitude? "Unless you have worked in a restaurant, serving others, you will not understand the efforts and hard work put into serving at a restaurant, especially one of such calibre as The Wave." It sounds to me like they are making excuses for the poor behaviour they are being accused of.
I worked in a restaurant for almost four years, and I agree it is not easy. You get a lot of impatient customers who can never be pleased. But, the customer has a right to have some basic expectations, especially in the areas of food safety and courtesy from staff. Borst referred to the waitresses discussing their "personal life within ear-shot of customers" and "finishing up personal conversations with other servers while people are waiting to be seated" - again, issues the waitresses' response did not even touch. On the part of staff at any restaurant or retail business, this is unacceptable service and Borst has every right to be upset.
The only area I would disagree with Borst and agree with the waitresses is where Borst accuses them of "giving the customer attitude, picking a fight with the customer" when trying to get reimbursement. Again, as a former restaurant employee, customers must bear in mind businesses have to maintain a level of consistency when dealing with customer disputes. It doesn't matter so much what the policy is, but no customer should be favoured over another in the same type of dispute. That said, the onus is on wait staff to be courteous and professional in the process.
Unfortunately, I feel these waitresses are protecting each other and are trying to cover up real problems. It is common in business for employees to protect each other and deny that certain problems exist. Borst has a point that should be taken more seriously by The Wave.
In the February 12th issue, Nicole Borst wrote about her experience dining at The Wave. A response written by three waitresses at The Wave appeared in the March 5th issue - interestingly almost a month after the fact.
Both parties are correct on some points. Borst contends she and her friend were "seated by a visibly sick server who proceeded to cough on her hands and subsequently provide us with cutlery." The waitresses' response did not even touch the issue of sanitary food practices. Although I cannot speak for The Wave, from my experience with The Spoke (which is co-owned with The Wave) hygene is not even a part of the corporate culture. On several occasions I have gone to The Spoke, I have seen servers wiping their nose on their hands, and then proceeding to handle food without any attempt at handwashing. I fully believe Borst on this point about a server coughing on the cutlery.
What is the waitresses' attitude? "Unless you have worked in a restaurant, serving others, you will not understand the efforts and hard work put into serving at a restaurant, especially one of such calibre as The Wave." It sounds to me like they are making excuses for the poor behaviour they are being accused of.
I worked in a restaurant for almost four years, and I agree it is not easy. You get a lot of impatient customers who can never be pleased. But, the customer has a right to have some basic expectations, especially in the areas of food safety and courtesy from staff. Borst referred to the waitresses discussing their "personal life within ear-shot of customers" and "finishing up personal conversations with other servers while people are waiting to be seated" - again, issues the waitresses' response did not even touch. On the part of staff at any restaurant or retail business, this is unacceptable service and Borst has every right to be upset.
The only area I would disagree with Borst and agree with the waitresses is where Borst accuses them of "giving the customer attitude, picking a fight with the customer" when trying to get reimbursement. Again, as a former restaurant employee, customers must bear in mind businesses have to maintain a level of consistency when dealing with customer disputes. It doesn't matter so much what the policy is, but no customer should be favoured over another in the same type of dispute. That said, the onus is on wait staff to be courteous and professional in the process.
Unfortunately, I feel these waitresses are protecting each other and are trying to cover up real problems. It is common in business for employees to protect each other and deny that certain problems exist. Borst has a point that should be taken more seriously by The Wave.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Kill the deer. Now.
For the better part of eight years now, London City Council has been bickering about whether or not to cull some deer in and around Sifton Bog.
I can't believe we're still talking about this. The answer to the deer overpopulation has always been obvious. Why? Relocating the deer would solve nothing, because the deer would die anyways since they would be moved to an unnatural habitat. Doing nothing means they're still invading backyards, and getting themselves killed on fences.
We had this discussion in 2001. And now in 2009, City Council wants to spend our taxpayer money on a consultant to tell us what we already know.
Controller Bud Polhill, as well as some area residents, are opposed to a deer cull simply because they're afraid of consequences for children.
One particularly strong letter to the editor on the subject appeared in today's London Free Press, written by Mary Shepherd. In her letter, she argues:
"The fallout from this plan will take a heavy toll on children; the boards of education would be well-advised to have long-term counselling available for staff, students and families who will suffer emotionally should killing be the city's decision. How does a teacher explain that the deer will die, often a slow, lingering death, and that "their" deer could be one of the animals killed?"
Grief counsellors?! For deer? According to this argument, children who grow up on farms need grief counsellors whenever "their" cows or chickens are killed for meat.
The City of London needs to have some balls and ignore these emotional, illogical pleas to protect the massive deer population. The decision to cull should have been made quickly years ago, and the City should then have moved on to bigger issues. It speaks volumes at what kind of city London is compared to its neighbours.
While London City Council bickers about deer, other municipalities are planning regional rail transit for the future. London has got to be the laughingstock of Kitchener-Waterloo.
Kill them, and move on.
I can't believe we're still talking about this. The answer to the deer overpopulation has always been obvious. Why? Relocating the deer would solve nothing, because the deer would die anyways since they would be moved to an unnatural habitat. Doing nothing means they're still invading backyards, and getting themselves killed on fences.
We had this discussion in 2001. And now in 2009, City Council wants to spend our taxpayer money on a consultant to tell us what we already know.
Controller Bud Polhill, as well as some area residents, are opposed to a deer cull simply because they're afraid of consequences for children.
One particularly strong letter to the editor on the subject appeared in today's London Free Press, written by Mary Shepherd. In her letter, she argues:
"The fallout from this plan will take a heavy toll on children; the boards of education would be well-advised to have long-term counselling available for staff, students and families who will suffer emotionally should killing be the city's decision. How does a teacher explain that the deer will die, often a slow, lingering death, and that "their" deer could be one of the animals killed?"
Grief counsellors?! For deer? According to this argument, children who grow up on farms need grief counsellors whenever "their" cows or chickens are killed for meat.
The City of London needs to have some balls and ignore these emotional, illogical pleas to protect the massive deer population. The decision to cull should have been made quickly years ago, and the City should then have moved on to bigger issues. It speaks volumes at what kind of city London is compared to its neighbours.
While London City Council bickers about deer, other municipalities are planning regional rail transit for the future. London has got to be the laughingstock of Kitchener-Waterloo.
Kill them, and move on.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Year-round bus pass needed
There has been ongoing debate in the past few years as to whether the London Transit bus pass provided to all undergraduate students at the University of Western Ontario should be expanded to a full year.
It is imperative the current bus pass is made valid for twelve months of the year, instead of the present eight months from September to April.
Contrary to what some Western students believe, there are a large number of Western students who are in London during May, June, July and August.
In addition to the many students who are actually from London and live in London all year round, other students are in London over the summer because they are taking summer courses, have found a job in London, or have just decided to make London their home all year.
At present, it costs $283 to have an LTC bus pass for the months May-August if you are a post-secondary student - $70 per month plus a $3 photo charge. This is more than the cost of the eight-month pass Western students have during the year.
Of course, there are many students who would be opposed to a year-round bus pass, as they go back to their hometown for the summer.
Therefore, there should be a compromise. Much as the University Student Council Health Plan has an opt-out feature for students who have other health plans, there should be an option for students to get either an eight-month bus pass or a full-year bus pass, for an extra fee not exceeding $80.
There should also be an opt-out option for students who do not have access to LTC. In this case, this opt-out should be an option only to those students who live in an area over a kilometre away from a full-service LTC route. Students who live in Komoka or Lucan - and yes, there are some - should not have to pay for a bus pass they will almost never use.
There would be an extra administrative cost to having multiple bus pass structures, but it could be amortized across all students to the point it would be a minimal additional charge absorbed into the passes.
It is imperative the current bus pass is made valid for twelve months of the year, instead of the present eight months from September to April.
Contrary to what some Western students believe, there are a large number of Western students who are in London during May, June, July and August.
In addition to the many students who are actually from London and live in London all year round, other students are in London over the summer because they are taking summer courses, have found a job in London, or have just decided to make London their home all year.
At present, it costs $283 to have an LTC bus pass for the months May-August if you are a post-secondary student - $70 per month plus a $3 photo charge. This is more than the cost of the eight-month pass Western students have during the year.
Of course, there are many students who would be opposed to a year-round bus pass, as they go back to their hometown for the summer.
Therefore, there should be a compromise. Much as the University Student Council Health Plan has an opt-out feature for students who have other health plans, there should be an option for students to get either an eight-month bus pass or a full-year bus pass, for an extra fee not exceeding $80.
There should also be an opt-out option for students who do not have access to LTC. In this case, this opt-out should be an option only to those students who live in an area over a kilometre away from a full-service LTC route. Students who live in Komoka or Lucan - and yes, there are some - should not have to pay for a bus pass they will almost never use.
There would be an extra administrative cost to having multiple bus pass structures, but it could be amortized across all students to the point it would be a minimal additional charge absorbed into the passes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)