An Organizational Case Study of Washington State Waiter Job Quality: Lessons for “Workplace Development”

Background: As U.S. social welfare policy has moved toward a “work first” approach to poverty alleviation, social workers have increasingly assumed roles in “workforce development.” While the field is informed by research on worker attributes associated with employment barriers, social workers have less often integrated structural insights about employment into their practice – that is, conditions of workplaces and jobs that shape the low-skill and –wage employment experience. Building on emerging scholarship in this area (Appelbaum, et al, 2003; Bernhardt, et al, 2003; Henly, et al, 2006; Lambert, 2008), this paper presents a “person-in-environment” approach to understanding social work clients' experiences with work. It then reviews findings from a qualitative organizational case study of employment practices in restaurants. “Environment” is conceptualized in three dimensions: a restaurants' urban, suburban versus rural location, size and ownership status (independent versus chain). The paper examines how these environmental features align with waiters' working conditions, as reflected in hiring criteria, pay and benefits, and scheduling. The paper concludes by considering implications for social work practice addressing employment and poverty.

Methods: Three politically and socioeconomically compatible geographic areas in Washington State –urban, suburban and rural – were selected, then a sample frame of full-service restaurants obtained from the state labor department used to randomly recruit four lower-end, independent restaurants in each area: two “small” (3-9 staff), one “medium” (20-28) and one large (38-80). One (large) site of a low-end national chain was also recruited in each area, yielding a total restaurant sample of 15. A semi-structured protocol was developed for interviews with manager-owners in Summer 2007. Analyses involved making sequenced comparisons of data matrices that organized information on employer practices by site location, size and ownership status (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Ragin, 1987, 2003; Yin, 1994).

Results: All but two restaurants paid waiters just the state minimum wage ($7.93 in 2007) and no sites offered paid sick days. Variation in other job aspects appeared linked to size, location and chain affiliation. All of the chain and large independent sites offered health insurance, paid vacation and waiter input into work days; chain but not independent sites required past experience, however. Three urban sites but only one other (rural) restaurant employed more than 50 percent full-time waitstaff. Large and urban sites also generated the highest tips and required least tip sharing by waiters. In four urban sites – and four suburban – 50 or more percent of waiters stayed for at least two years. In contrast, rural managers reported quick turnover and difficulty hiring waiters even when often offering paid vacation and work days input, though minimal other benefits.

Conclusions: The results reveal that the same low-wage job is differently managed across workplace location, size and ownership, as well as within those categories. This suggests “workforce development” professionals should account for working conditions facing the jobs they recommend to clients, particularly those in smaller, independent firms in suburban and rural areas; and consider advocating with policymakers and employers to improve those conditions as much as clients' human capital.