|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Sacramento finally has a Hooters!
|
|
|
David Buckley
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 525
From: Oxford, N. Canterbury, New Zealand
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted 09-07-2005 01:47 AM
On the news tonight - we're getting a Hooters in Auckland.
News item pointed out there are also Hooters in India, as well as many other countries :-)
Ooh - found a print news item, its fairly Kiwi, so I thought I'd include it.
Link to news item in Stuff Business
Hooters to open restaurants in New Zealand
07 September 2005
An American restaurant and bar chain, famous for its scantily clad women staff, is planning to expand into major New Zealand cities next year.
Hooters, whose "Hooters Girls" wear tight fitting shorts and tank tops, has operations in 16 countries.
Spokesman for Hooters in New Zealand Michael Flinn said the first spots to open would be in Auckland and Hooters was opening here because of the "economic growth, favourable business climate and long-term growth potential of New Zealand".
According to Hooters.com, "the chain acknowledges that many consider 'Hooters' a slang term for a portion of the female anatomy.
"Hooters does have an owl inside its logo and uses an owl theme sufficiently to allow debate to occur over the meaning's intent.
"The chain enjoys and benefits from this debate".
It goes on to say "claims that Hooters exploits attractive women are as ridiculous as saying the NFL (American National Football League) exploits men who are big and fast.
"Hooters Girls have the same right to use their natural female sex appeal to earn a living as do super models Cindy Crawford and Naomi Campbell".
Hooters operates under the slogan "delightfully tacky yet unrefined".
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
David Buckley
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 525
From: Oxford, N. Canterbury, New Zealand
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted 09-07-2005 04:31 PM
Backlash has started already :-)
Kiwi women don't like Hooters
08 September 2005
By SUE ALLEN and NZPA
American restaurant Hooters, whose "Hooters Girls" wear tight shorts and tank tops, plans to open branches across all major New Zealand centres.
The first is expected to open in Auckland early next year.
Green Party women's affairs spokeswoman Sue Kedgley described Hooters opening in New Zealand as "retrograde".
"It just sounds like the blatant sexism of the 1960s that provoked the feminist movement. It's hard to believe this could be a serious move in the 21st century."
Rape Crisis spokeswoman Andrea Black said putting women in skimpy clothes and getting them to wait on tables perpetuated the myth that women were purely there for men's sexual pleasure.
"There's a risk in that for society as a whole and for women."
The Hooters' website acknowledges that many consider "Hooters" to be a slang term for a portion of the female anatomy, but the use of an owl in its logo and promotions was sufficient to allow debate over the intended meaning. The company dismissed claims it exploits women.
Though it describes itself as a "neighbourhood place", 68 per cent of customers are male, most aged between 25 and 54.
Hamish Kynaston, an employment law specialist with law firm Buddle Findlay, said though the law did not prohibit people being hired on the basis of their looks, companies doing so would have to be careful not to fall foul of the Human Rights Act.
That meant people could not be discriminated against on the basis of things like age, sex, race or disability.
I expect this one to run and run.
We now return you to Sacramento network programming.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Stawiarski
Film Handler
Posts: 62
From: MW
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 09-07-2005 04:36 PM
From Hooters' website on the legal issues:
quote: Hooters.com
For a distinctly different reason, Hooters ran into problems with the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) in 1991. The agency brought forth a commissioner's charge against Hooters claiming its hiring practices discriminate against men. Following an intensive four-year investigation the EEOC determined what executives had told them all along, Hooters only hires women as Hooters Girls. On November 15, 1995, the chain took the EEOC's charge public with a 100 Hooters Girl march on Washington D.C. Hooters received support from the nation's media, calling the charge "another example of ridiculous government waste," and some 500,000 Hooters customers supported the chain by sending postcards to Congress.
Because of this action, 23 members of the 104th Congress, led by Rep. Charles Norwood (R- Ga.), wrote the EEOC requesting it drop this matter. On May 1, 1996, news reports announced that the federal agency would not pursue litigation. To date, Hooters has not received formal notification from the EEOC, however believes the matter is concluded.
But this was not the end of the legal issues surrounding the Hooters Girl. A group of men in Chicago and a group in Maryland brought forth class action lawsuits challenging the Hooters restaurant chain's right to hire only women in front-of-house positions. On November 25, 1997, federal magistrate Morton Denlow in Chicago approved a settlement of these class actions. Under the parties' agreement, Hooters will continue to be allowed to hire only women for the job of Hooters Girl.
Most importantly, the settlement agreement acknowledged that "being female is reasonably necessary" to the performance of the Hooters Girl's job duties, forever preserving the integrity of the Hooters Girl concept.
Sex appeal is legal and it sells. Newspapers, magazines, daytime talk shows, and local television affiliates consistently emphasize a variety of sexual topics to boost sales. Hooters marketing, emphasizing the Hooters Girl and her sex appeal, along with its commitment to quality operations continues to build and contributes to the chain's success. Hooters' business motto sums it up, "You can sell the sizzle, but you have to deliver the steak."
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[scream]](graemlins/scream.gif)
That's pretty funny!
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic