Gothamist: Shake Shack Responds to Health Code Violations

Taly

Fri, 27 Oct 2006 16:30:47 -0500

Your site is amaizing. Can I share some resources with you? nokia6630

Not Amused

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:04:54 -0500

Another eatery found to be "Dirty" . What a surprise, I stop eating at fastfood joints years ago! People are nasty and have disguisting habits that they force on the general public. I must say this is by nature though. People look at it this way, " I know my hands are clean enough to eat from because it's my germs" . What they forget to remember is that it's there germs and not the general public! I stop eating heroes, Pizza, And other fastfood because of a couple of "Occurrences" . Think about that the next time you buy that "Big Mac" or order that Chinese food . Their may be something extra added on to your order .

CornflakeGirl

Sat, 19 Aug 2006 12:06:04 -0500

Shake Shack received a 14 from the NYHD yesterday! Of course we'll never hear about it because the media rarely reports good news.

eb

Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:43:36 -0500

last year shake shack recieved a 4 from the health department. previous scores included a 42 the year before and 14 their first year. standards must have really slipped. still, i can believe the health inspectors are like cops with ticket quotas. regardless, a friend and i got sick from jamba juice in soho. they got a 2 and a 4 from the health department. so, i'd take those ratings with a grain of salt.

Native New Yorker

Thu, 17 Aug 2006 09:52:05 -0500

Actually, the response to the lack of handwashing facilities (# 8) is that the Shack has always had adequate facilities. No, this is not the case. Also, it is not stated anywhere that using the Park bathroom is a new development. The response states (# 7) "we have established an agreement with the Department of Parks and Recreation for our employees to use the basement bathrooms." It must be a new development, otherwise there would be no citation for lack of bathroom facilities. Shake Shack would have produced an agreement showing that the Parks bathrooms were usable. They didn't. It must also be a new development because it is on the list of corrections made, which implies that these are responses to the citations. Again, if it was already in place, why did they get cited for it? I assume the employees have been using these bathrooms since the Shack opened. I am assuming nothing, other than the citations are factually accurate. Many park vendors (such as those using pushcarts) use local merchant bathrooms (McDonalds, etc). Or should I assume that, from opening day forward, Danny Meyer thought it would be acceptable for the employees to do their business right outside the kitchen door and hop right back in the kitchen? Two big assumptions: 1. Danny Meyer is some kind of moral superhuman who would never cut corners. I got 140 health code violation points that say that isn't the case. 2. Employees would be peeing "behind the corner". I don't think anyone suggested that. Hardly. Do you honestly think the employees had nowhere to wash their hands in 2 years or that management somehow overlooked the fact that "employees must wash hands" as it is clearly stated above the sinks of even the grimiest of this city's eateries? Yes, because they were specifically cited for such by a City Agency. Those grimy city eateries have sinks. Unlike Shake Shack. Ad hoc handwashing is not acceptable for any establishment. I don't care how famous Meyer is or how many stars his restaurants have. He runs a filthy burger stand that is one of the most cited violators in the entire city. I don't know who owns or runs Grey's Papaya, and I am sure they never made the cover of Gourmet, but they manage to have sinks, get the proper food handling certificates, and clean the place.

crabbie pattie

Wed, 16 Aug 2006 17:14:45 -0500

You sure don't want me making your patties. I like to pick my bunghole and sometimes don't trim my nails for over a week. yuck yuck. and smelly, too.

jack oneil

Wed, 16 Aug 2006 17:13:28 -0500

Um, haven't they heard of Purell by now? I think the picture represents the burgers well, greasy and very undercooked.

down, kids

Wed, 16 Aug 2006 16:31:55 -0500

Native, Actually, the response to the lack of handwashing facilities (# 8) is that the Shack has always had adequate facilities. Also, it is not stated anywhere that using the Park bathroom is a new development. The response states (# 7) "we have established an agreement with the Department of Parks and Recreation for our employees to use the basement bathrooms." I assume the employees have been using these bathrooms since the Shack opened. Or should I assume that, from opening day forward, Danny Meyer thought it would be acceptable for the employees to do their business right outside the kitchen door and hop right back in the kitchen? Hardly. Do you honestly think the employees had nowhere to wash their hands in 2 years or that management somehow overlooked the fact that "employees must wash hands" as it is clearly stated above the sinks of even the grimiest of this city's eateries?

anonymass

Wed, 16 Aug 2006 16:26:40 -0500

Having food handlers use the Parks Dept. bathroom seems to me even less savory than not washing at all.

Native New Yorker

Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:21:55 -0500

Down Kids: Uh huh. Note that the response to the lack of handwashing facilities is that employees will now be able to use the Parks Department bathroom (a new development) Forget the citation for a moment, use common sense: Where have they been washing their hands for the last two years? Ask a Doctor or Nurse how much disease and waste matter is on your hands (but unseen) after you use the toilet. If you don't belive this is the case, come on over and I'll cook you a handmade gourmet hamburger dinner, right after I take a colossal dump, wipe myself, and neglect to wash my hands. I'll even let you inspect my hands first, but no washing.

down, kids

Wed, 16 Aug 2006 12:46:01 -0500

Dear Schadenfreuders and -ettes, If you inspect a bit more closely the violation/actions taken chart, which, by the way, I find to be a very responsible and proactive response by management, there is a violation of "not washing hands thoroughly after visiting the toilet, otherwise contaminating hands." The obvious, knee-jerk reaction most of you are displaying is "Eww, the food workers' hands are covered with filthy, human waste, which goes right into my food." Yes, that is nasty, but that's not what happened. Please re-read that violation language again, substituting "or" for the comma. The worker in question did "otherwise," by not changing gloves after wiping the ice cream service station. To me, that's a far less egregious foul. And, yes, the health inspectors do sit around gagging for violations, just like cops trying to fill ticket quotas.

yano

Wed, 16 Aug 2006 12:13:56 -0500

Oftentimes, the inspectors are bribe-friendly, according to what I've heard. Hard to gauge the accuracy of those ratings sometimes. But I hardly think a 140-level rating is a mistake or payback for not getting a free shake. I went to Shake Shack once. While I was waiting for my burger and fries, I watched the workers work in the window. One of the nasty things I saw was a worker who handled the burgers into the little bags and into the boxes. He was wiping the sweat off his face with his gloved hand, and, without changing gloves, handling the burgers. I decided not to experiment--7 bucks worth of education.

pugsley

Wed, 16 Aug 2006 12:13:50 -0500

where's the grays papaya cam

Dude

Wed, 16 Aug 2006 11:40:09 -0500

Trendy dining vs. possible e Coli poisoning, NYers sure have their priorities straight. It's a whopping 140 pts. people! Not borderline violation, but serving food off the floors of Giant's Stadium restrooms during a game violation!

restaurateurs?

Wed, 16 Aug 2006 11:32:08 -0500

Would interesting to hear from restaurateurs: Give your experience, what's your opinion on whether the owner is characterizing things fairly, eg are the codes sometimes "overly broad" as he said in his point-by-point response? I'm not saying he is, or isn't -- simply curious to hear informed views of people who have seen the process themselves. Also, any interesting war stories with health inspectors? A friend of mine who owns a small bar says the inspector literally sits down for hours in the teeny tiny (6-table?) establishment, in order to simply wait for some violation to materialize so he can levy a fine (such as catching a barkeep accidentally leaving the "wrong" towel on the bar). My friend also says it feels like he is implicitly asking for a "bribe" of free food/drink by sitting there for so long. Anyone else? Love the Shake Shack, or hate it, this episode is an interesting look into NYC's food police bureaucracy.

Guy

Wed, 16 Aug 2006 11:28:14 -0500

That's great news about Gray's, now if only we knew exactly what was going into the hotdogs themselves... (P.S. I'm a big fan of both Gray's and SS, but Gray's edges out because of money to full-belly ratio and now because of their sanitary conditions.) A couple of years ago Cafeteria had some major health code violations and trendy folk still frequented that place like it was the greatest restaurant on earth. It's funny how NYers act. We're so uptight about so much stuff, but we choose to ignore how dirty a lot of our food joints are.

Native New Yorker

Wed, 16 Aug 2006 11:14:31 -0500

Sorry, if the workers are using the bathroom and not washing their hands there is a 100% certainty of urine and feces coming into contact with the food. There is no excuse for these results? He didn't know that a restaurant needs a sink for cooks to use? The things the restaurant genius apparently "didn't know" also included food prep courses for supervisors (which I have seen posted in even the filthiest of crummy delis), that a semipermanent food establishment needs water and sewage connections, and you need a thermometer around even if it's just for show. Also, the health report states "Evidence of flying insects or live flying insects present in facility's food and/or non-food areas." I guess live roaches and/or flies are not "vermin" in Meyer's world. Even Kindergarteners know to wash their hands before eating or preparing food. I have a suggestion for Danny Meyer: don't expect me to ever eat in one of your restaurants, because it is obvious that you know how to fluff publicists and food writers very well, but very little about basic cleanliness and common sense. Just to compare (from the Dept of Health website): Gray's Papaya, 402 6th Avenue: 6 Points, no handwashing or cleanliness violations Remember, this is a 24 hour cheap dirty dog stand frequented by the homeless. Yet, they have a sink!

Kojak

Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:58:27 -0500

To wait on a longass line for most of their lunch hour just to get their hands on an average, highly unhealthy, piece of shit burger is a sign of idiocy, a waste of time, and life. But who are we to stop them? They can go ahead and wait on line all day for shit burgers for all I care. I’m just annoyed that this place is getting more coverage then it should.

parasaji

Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:53:51 -0500

Looks greasy and gross. I'll pass

otherobject

Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:53:11 -0500

Wasn't going to go before and sure as hell won't go now.

Sylvia

Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:52:49 -0500

Are you actually surprised of their health code violations??? I mean, come on! Shake Shack is located in Rat Park. That is the #1 sign of unsanitariness.

Eric

Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:48:53 -0500

Who cares? In-N-Out is miles better than Shake Shack.

jtg

Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:45:36 -0500

It seems with this post that the Gothamist comments have sunken to a new level of stupidity. "Poop-filled burgers"? Yes, that's really what was happening at Shake Shack. "Pathetic lemmings"? Just because you are not interested in waiting in line doesn't make the people that do idiots.

Dude

Wed, 16 Aug 2006 08:50:35 -0500

I think those morons who still gonna eat at the Shake after this enjoy the runs and getting their stomachs pumped. LOL Sad thing is that their children will be forced to feed on poop-filled burgers as well.

Don't wash your hands!!

Wed, 16 Aug 2006 08:40:51 -0500

Love it! Anything to reduce the lines!

will

Wed, 16 Aug 2006 08:31:12 -0500

dude, you're right, the burgers at the shake shack are the best in the city for people who like to stand in line. and those who like to eat poo.

Dude

Wed, 16 Aug 2006 08:07:35 -0500

Never tried the Shack and never wanted to, even though I live a couple of blocks away. Seeing all those pathetic lemmings waiting 45 min for some so so burger is enough to keep me away. They should offer a side of salmonella to go with their booger burgers. All we need is someone to sue Meyer and run the Shake out of business, so the lemmings can go back to Wendy's.

anonymass

Wed, 16 Aug 2006 04:57:42 -0500

I hope that anyone who has ever written a Shake Shack headline on Gothamist gets e.Coli. You sad overhyping losers.

pugsley

Wed, 16 Aug 2006 03:40:42 -0500

strange reaction by Danny. He claims that no "major violations" were poop related, yet the report says that workers didn't wash hands before leaving bathroom. Maybe Danny doesn't consider poop a "major violation."

Shackerati

Wed, 16 Aug 2006 02:18:43 -0500

Zinc, if you've heard of the shack you know they are in fact known for their burgers, as well as the Shakes and concretes. I'm a little discomforted by the report but I'm happy to see that the food itself didn't get busted. Makes me wonder how the DoH would report on our time-honored fire escape grills. Eating outside is dirty, and it STILL don't kill you.

zincink

Wed, 16 Aug 2006 00:43:35 -0500

i was always told...stick to what they are known for...shake shack - shakes... seafood shack - seafood burger shack - burger

Mr. Pony

Wed, 16 Aug 2006 00:27:35 -0500

This really works out for everybody. Those of us whose love of the Shack trumps our fear of illness will face shorter lines, and folks afraid of germs and other invisible things will be reminded to go somewhere else, or even stay inside. I mean, these people probably shouldn't be eating ground beef in a NYC park anyway.

Toby

Wed, 16 Aug 2006 00:10:48 -0500

Well this makes me glad I haven't given into the hype and eaten there.

Teddy N

Tue, 15 Aug 2006 23:45:31 -0500

I've tasted better burgers.

dan soda

Tue, 15 Aug 2006 23:22:41 -0500

the shake shack is such an example of reality not living up to the hype. the burgers are only average and now, apparently, dirty and used to mop the floor with.

just saying

Tue, 15 Aug 2006 22:58:06 -0500

"The major violations for which we were cited were either structural or operational. None found conditions of vermin, mucus, urine or feces." Thanks for the descriptive explanation. What could reassure the customers any more?

dampfnudel

Tue, 15 Aug 2006 22:30:54 -0500

Nothing new. If we knew what goes on at most eateries in the city, we would never dine out. When a eatery becomes too busy, the chances of something "extra" slipping into your meal increases.

homo faggot guy

Tue, 15 Aug 2006 22:13:52 -0500

YAY! hopefully there will be less people in line so I can get those delicious soiled hand burgers.

Teddy N

Tue, 15 Aug 2006 22:11:36 -0500

I'm not surprised. Maybe the lines will be shorter now.

Kojak

Tue, 15 Aug 2006 21:59:47 -0500

AGAIN with the Shake Shack... Well I guess if somebody's gotta report it, it has to be Gothamist. Now I hope this opens all your eyes to what might be inside those burgers you all go crazy about. Perhaps a booger? a used Condom? a Roach?