Latest / Restaurant Business with Fexingo: Food Service, Hospitality, and Independent Operators / How Restaurant Uniform Policies Affect Staff Retention
Transcript
- Lucas: So I was talking to a chef in Portland last week — runs a four-star tasting menu spot, twelve employees total — and he mentioned something I hadn't thought about in years. He said his single biggest headache this year is aprons. Luna: Aprons. Like, the cloth things that go over your clothes? Lucas: Exactly. He buys high-quality French linen aprons, custom embroidered with his logo, about $90 each. He bought forty of them to start the year. He's down to twelve. The rest have walked out with employees, been ruined in the wash, or just disappeared. That's over two and a half thousand dollars in aprons gone in five months. Luna: Wow. And that's just aprons. What about the chef coats, the branded t-shirts, the nonslip shoes that employees expect you to provide? Lucas: Right. And that's exactly the rabbit hole I went down. Because uniforms — what we make employees wear — is one of those costs that looks small on a per-person basis but scales in ways that surprise you. And it turns out, it's also a major driver of retention. Luna: Retention? Because of a shirt? Lucas: Because of what the shirt represents. Let me give you a concrete example. A Michelin-starred restaurant in New York — I won't name them, but they're well known — spent about $700 per employee on their uniform package: custom-fit chef coats, tailored pants, leather aprons, even engraved nametags. They had a 15 percent annual turnover in front of house. Industry average is about 75 percent. The owner told me he considers that $700 an investment in retention, not an expense. Luna: That's a bold claim. But correlation isn't causation. Maybe they just pay well and treat people right. Lucas: Sure, but he also told me about his previous restaurant, where he did cheap polyester aprons and generic white shirts. Turnover was around 60 percent. He changed nothing else except the uniform quality and the policy around it. And the turnover dropped. Luna: So what changed? Was it the quality, or the message it sends? Lucas: Both. The better-quality uniforms — they're more comfortable, they breathe, they fit well — that matters when you're on your feet for ten hours. But also, when you give someone a $300 chef coat, you're signaling that you see them as a professional. And employees respond to that. Luna: Okay, but there's a counterexample. I know a fast-casual chain — burritos, bowls, that kind of thing — they give employees a $40 budget to buy any black shirt and pants from Walmart. They have 200 percent turnover in the kitchen. And they blame the labor market. Lucas: And you're thinking, maybe the uniform policy is part of the problem. Because when you tell someone 'go buy whatever black shirt you want,' you're saying 'we don't care enough to provide you with something professional.' And there's a psychological effect. Luna: Plus, when everyone shows up in a different black shirt, it looks sloppy. Customers notice. And that affects tips. Lucas: That's actually a really important point. There's research — I think Cornell's School of Hotel Administration did a study — showing that when front of house staff wear a chef coat instead of a regular shirt, their average tip percentage goes up by about two percentage points. The diner perceives them as more knowledgeable about the food. Luna: So a $70 chef coat can pay for itself in tips within a few weeks. That's a direct return. Lucas: Exactly. But the economics get more complicated when you factor in laundry and replacement. A lot of restaurants require employees to launder their own uniforms. That shifts the cost to the employee, but it also means inconsistent quality — some people iron, some don't, some bleach everything, some let it wrinkle. Luna: And then the restaurant looks inconsistent. Which hurts the brand. Lucas: There's a middle ground. Some restaurants are moving to what they call a 'uniform allowance' — they give employees, say, $200 a year to buy their own approved items, but the restaurant handles all the laundering centrally. That way the restaurant controls the look, but the employee gets to pick the fit. Luna: And the laundering cost — is that significant? Lucas: It adds up. A typical restaurant with 30 front of house staff might spend $15,000 a year just on dry cleaning and laundry for uniforms. If they do it in-house with commercial machines, it's lower but still not trivial. And there's shrinkage — uniforms get lost, stolen, or damaged. Luna: Shrinkage. That's a retail term. How much are restaurants losing to uniform theft? Lucas: I've seen estimates that 10 to 20 percent of uniform inventory disappears each year. Employees take them home, quit without returning them, or just toss them in the trash. For a mid-size chain, that could be $60,000 annually in lost uniforms. Luna: So what's the smart policy? Do you make employees pay a deposit? Do you deduct from their paycheck if they don't return it? Lucas: Legally, you can't deduct from wages for uniform loss in most states unless the employee signs a specific agreement. And even then, it's tricky. Some restaurants issue two sets of uniforms per employee and require the old set to be returned before getting a new one. That creates a paper trail. Luna: And it also forces the employee to take some responsibility. Lucas: Right. But the best restaurants I've seen treat uniforms as part of the culture. They make them desirable. One place in Chicago has a partnership with a local denim brand — they make custom aprons that are actually cool. Employees keep them after a year of employment. That becomes a retention tool — people stay to get the apron. Luna: That's brilliant. And then you have employees posting photos of their aprons on Instagram, which is free marketing. Lucas: Exactly. So the uniform isn't just a cost — it's a marketing asset, a retention tool, a tip booster, and a brand signal. If you're a restaurant owner listening, I'd say: look at your uniform policy not as a line item to minimize, but as a lever you can pull. Luna: And also, tax-deductible. Uniforms that are required and not suitable for everyday wear are a deductible business expense. So the net cost is lower than you think. Lucas: Which brings up another point — if you do provide uniforms, keep receipts and document the policy. The IRS looks closely at clothing deductions. Luna: Speaking of thinking about costs differently — if today's episode made you reconsider a line item in your own budget, that's exactly the kind of thing we try to do here. And the reason we can do it without ads or sponsors is listener support. If you found this useful, you can help keep us going at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. Lucas: Yeah, it really does make a difference. Even a small contribution adds up, and it keeps these conversations free and focused on what actually works in the business. Luna: Exactly. So back to uniforms — one last thing I want to mention. There's a new trend in high-end restaurants: the personal clothing allowance. Instead of providing uniforms, they give each employee $1,000 a year to buy their own professional wardrobe, with guidelines. The restaurant does all the laundering. It's expensive upfront, but turnover drops to near zero. Lucas: I've seen that work in a few places. It's essentially paying people to dress well and treating them like adults. And the cost — $1,000 per person per year — if it reduces turnover by even 10 percent, it pays for itself in reduced hiring and training costs. Luna: So the lesson is: don't cheap out on what your staff wears. It's not about fashion — it's about respect, retention, and revenue. Lucas: Well said. Next week, we're going to look at something completely different: the economics of restaurant loyalty programs. Why most of them fail, and what the ones that work do differently. Luna: Looking forward to it. Until then.