An Examination of Customers’ Attitudes about Table Top Technology in Full-Service Restaurants

This paper examines the influence of customer-facing technology in full-service restaurants. As a new addition to the service experience, tabletop devices offer the customer more control over the dining experience, and also increase customer participation in the service process, which has the potential to upset the traditional exchange between service providers and customers in restaurants. To examine how customers react to the use of tabletop devices, this study examines 1,343 point-of-sales transactions from 20 units of a full-service casual dining restaurant chain and matches customer in-restaurant transactions to their reactions to tabletop devices used during their meals. Results show that over 70% of the customers who used tabletop devices reported positive affect toward the device, with approximately 79% of customers reporting that the device improved their experience, citing convenience, ease of use, and credit card security as some benefits of using the technology. Approximately 80% of the customers who used the device reported that they would return to the restaurant because of the positive affect. The results also indicate that likeability of the device and tip percentage were positively and significantly connected to customer reports of the devices having a positive effect on experience and on desire to return. In addition, when customers reported increased return intentions, likeability of the device was higher regardless of reports of the device improving restaurant experience, showing that the introduction of tabletop devices had a positive effect for most—but not all—customers.

Dealing with Shifting Labor Employment Sands

Changes in regulations and tighter interpretations of existing regulations engaged participants in 14th annual Labor and Employment Roundtable, hosted by the Cornell Institute for Hospitality Labor and Employment Relations. They also reviewed changes in union organizing rules. Two Supreme Court decisions dealt with the challenging application of accommodating workers’ health and religious needs, while a new ruling by the National Labor Relations Board calls into question the supposedly arm’s length relationship of employee leasing firms and their clients, as well as franchisors and franchisees. The NLRB also has shortened the campaign time for union elections. In one Supreme Court case, Young v. United Parcel Services, Inc., the Court pointed to a simple principle when employers implement policies for those with illness or medical conditions. Policies must be consistent with regard to how on-job and off-job health issues are treated, and the company’s policy must not be driven by economic considerations. That is, the Court stated that an employer’s denial of a light-duty assignment for an employee could not be based on cost or convenience. The case relating to religious accommodation also involved an economic hinge. In an earlier case, the Court had held that religious accommodations are limited to that which would have no more than a de minimus cost on the employer. In this case, EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores Inc., Abercrombie had declined to hire a woman wearing a headscarf on the assumption that she would need a religious accommodation. The Court frowned on the idea that an employer would take religious accommodations into account when deciding whether to hire a person. The franchising industry is attempting to make sense of the NLRB ruling regarding joint employment, in which the board ruled that franchisors that maintain some kind of control over their franchisees’ employees should be considered joint employers of those employees. This is a complicated matter, and the situation is still in flux. Finally, with regard to the telescoped union campaign ruling, these are supposed to benefit the unions. So far, however, there’s no indication that the change has affected the overall outcome of union election campaigns.