Read an interesting article today regarding tipping etiquette, and a man who has started a movement to try to regulate a standard 20% gratuity to be automatically added to all restaurant tabs.
The high-end Per Se in NYC has already adopted such a measure.
It's a very interesting article on undertippers and the reaction of waitstaff to such practices. It also says that studies have shown that quality service has very little to do with tip size, which is interesting. (Personally, I think that personality is the best indicator of tip size rather than service, but that's hard to quantify)
Would you stop going out to eat if restaurants automatically added 20% to the check for gratuity? What if it were 18% automatically on all checks?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
That's socialism.
Tipping is capitalism, totally unfettered by government regulation.
Forced tipping is socialism--which states that, "20% of your bill goes to pay your waiter so we, the restaurant, don't have to pay them on slow nights"
Forcing the restuaruants to pay minimum wage, but not allowing tipping is Communism.
So go ahead and support this, you lousy pinko red you.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Probably.
When I was a kid it was 10%, then it became 12%, then 15%. I actually thought 15% was still the standard.
Now, I always make it a point to tip as well as I can. Usually 25-50%. And I feel good about myself when I do so.
If the standard tip is 20% (when did that happen?) my 25% will no longer be enough to raise my own self-esteem about the way I treat others.
I'll have to raise my base tip to 32%. And my range would have to be 32%-64%??
I'm just not ready for that.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
They're making it 20% because the math is easy. Right now, in most restaurants, it's 18% for large groups, and not a hell of a lot of people can figure that out.
I *never* want to be forced to paying a gratuity.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Well, seeing as a waiter's hourly salary is less than the cost of a gallon of gas or a gallon of milk more often than not, 20% doesn't sound so unreasonable to me.
Then again, when I was a waiter, I usually averaged 20% or so anyway - the cheapskates were balanced by the generous, for the most part.
Still, a slow night sometimes generated only $150-200 in sales (3-4 groups, or so, at the restaurant I was at), which worked out to $30-40 for the night, plus my $15 in salary for 6 hours - minus taxes. And that was with 20% tipping.
I don't know if I agree with an automatic 20%, though. Maybe if restaurants were required to place a little card on each table that explained what their wairer's per-hour salary was, that customary practice is to tip 18% or more, and that the government took their taxed share of any tip left. [Edit: Oh, and it could mention that if you're using a 25% off coupon, it's recommended that you tip on the original price and not the discounted one - always a big pet peeve of mine.]
That'd be interesting.
I'm more for educating the consumer, rather than forcing them to tip.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I'd be against it. I actually tip based on service. If I have a lousy experience I don't want to be forced to pay 20% anyway. Not to mention I bet some employers would take it as an excuse to cut hourly wages (even though they're already low and even if, as FC indicated, the average is about 20% anyway.)
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
It wouldn't make me stop eating out, but it might make me more cost aware of the extras, like wine. A waiter does the same work to serve me a $23 bottle of wine or a $64 bottle of wine. Honestly, I'd rather they raised the prices on the menus, paid a decent wage, and said no tipping than added 20% to the bill at the end. If the amount the waiter gets isn't going to be dependant on what the diner wants to give them, why have it as a seperate line item on the bill?
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
Yeah, exactly. Not making tips forced at least forces restaurants to pay minimum wage.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Bah. If restaurants are allowed to add tips to all bills, I'll just stop eating in restaurants. Why should I be forced to subsidize bad service?
I tip well when I get good service in a restaurant, but I don't tip much or at all if the service is bad or nonexistent.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Yeah, exactly. Not making tips forced at least forces restaurants to pay minimum wage.
Technically, yes. But not really. Because your tips have to average out over the entire pay period over at minimum wage. So if you make jack all week and have one great night on Friday, they still probably won't have to pay you any extra.
And minimum wage is way too low for what servers do, anyway.
Edit: I do think that it should be one or the other. Either the servers are employed by the restaurant, and deserve at least minimum wage, or they are employed by the customer, and so should have the right to negotiate what their pay will be upfront. They should also have to delineate the type of service that they intend to give for that payment.
Usually, most of that is unspoken. If you go to TGIFriday's you generally have some expectation of the service you will receive, just as you would if you went to an upscale restaurant or IHOP. If you receive that service, why shouldn't you have to pay the expected tip?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I can honestly say that any restaurant that forced a 20% (or ANY size) tip on me would never get my business again.
quote:I'm more for educating the consumer, rather than forcing them to tip.
Same.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I'm thinking more like a forced 12-15%, with extra optional for great service, or a nice patootie.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think tipping is capitalism. Capitalism is about offering the best price for services rendered, and getting your money's worth. People choosing NOT to tip, regardless of the service they were given is not capitalism. It has nothing to do with competition, because there's no set prices, even by the competitors.
It would only be capitalism if each server decided ahead of time what their tip percentage would be, and advertised it, so incoming guests would know which servers charged which tip %, and chose their server accordingly. That way they'd know if they were getting their money's worth or not, and if the server didn't deserve it, someone would either switch to a different server of the same rate who was worth it, or to a server of a lower rate with lower quality to save money.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
PSI!!!!! You're alive and posting!!! Yay!
Ok back to the tipping thread.
I've always thought that restraunts should be forced to pay their wait staff a normal wage and that tipping should be the way for responding to phenomenal service.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm surprised that more restaurants aren't self-service, considering that a poor service experience is actually one of the most common complaints about restaurants. What does having a waitstaff actually bring to the experience, besides complimentary breadsticks and a heaping load of guilt?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
In some states restaurants DO have to pay at least minimum wage.
Posted by OSTY (Member # 1480) on :
Forced Tipping is a scam. A tip is all about service and if I don't feel service is good, I reduce my tip. If service is above what I expected, I tip well. I have been known to tip 80% for outstanding service and I have been known to tip 10% for bad service. One in my life I left no tip, my wife looked at me and agreed that the service was that bad.
But a tip becomes not a tip once it is forced. Its not gratuity but rather expectation. I even have walked into dining establishments that have forced tipping and explained to them that it will not appear on my bill and I will decide my tip after the service (granted I do do this upfront)and they always have not had a problem with that. Usually I am still tipping at least 20% but it assures me that they know their service is expected.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
See, if serving were really that volitile, and if no one was willing to do it, then restaurants would have to pay more to keep the servers.
So in a way it is capitalism. It's just the most stressful kind. *sob*
----
Hey, ludosti!
edit: OSTY. I would not make paying for tableside service any more or any less mandatory than paying for any other service or good. If the service were really terrible, then the manager should relieve you from having to pay for it, just as they would if the food sucked.
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm surprised that more restaurants aren't self-service, considering that a poor service experience is actually one of the most common complaints about restaurants. What does having a waitstaff actually bring to the experience, besides complimentary breadsticks and a heaping load of guilt?
And the self-service type places still often have little tip jars on the counter, which I think is very tacky.
--Mel
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm surprised that more restaurants aren't self-service, considering that a poor service experience is actually one of the most common complaints about restaurants. What does having a waitstaff actually bring to the experience, besides complimentary breadsticks and a heaping load of guilt?
I've had restaurant personnel at a self-service. buffet style restaurant look at me funny for not giving a "proper" tip. Tip for what? You think I'm going to pay 15% for water delivery?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
We have a place here called Bad Waitress. You come in, the hostess seats you and gives you menus. There's an order pad on the table with instructions on how to use it, and it it's the first time the hostess will go over it with you. You browse the menu, fill out your order, take it up to the counter and give it to them and they ring you up and pay. You stop at the sidebar on the way back for your silverware and condiments. They bring the food when it's ready.
I like it. Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm surprised that more restaurants aren't self-service, considering that a poor service experience is actually one of the most common complaints about restaurants. What does having a waitstaff actually bring to the experience, besides complimentary breadsticks and a heaping load of guilt?
Wow, that's pretty harsh. Are you saying that being a server isn't worth anything in a restaurant, because it would be better if everyone served themselves? I waited table for years, and I was pretty good at it. It's not the easiest thing in the world, to wait tables consistently and well. It definitely pushes the limits of endurance and patience.
I also think that having a great waiter when out to eat can really make the experience and is worth at least 20% of the tab, usually more. And I tend to get more good waiters than bad.
quote:It would only be capitalism if each server decided ahead of time what their tip percentage would be, and advertised it, so incoming guests would know which servers charged which tip %, and chose their server accordingly. That way they'd know if they were getting their money's worth or not, and if the server didn't deserve it, someone would either switch to a different server of the same rate who was worth it, or to a server of a lower rate with lower quality to save money.
I love this idea; the waiters wearing signs or something to indicate the tip they expect, establishing what kind of service you could expect. Assuming they are true to their word (or sign) you could pick how much you want to tip, and the servers could decide how hard they were willing to work for it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Tipping that is mandatory is no longer tipping.
That said, I hate tipping, and am against it even being expected.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Are you saying that being a server isn't worth anything in a restaurant, because it would be better if everyone served themselves?
I'm saying a server is as unnecessary as a gas station attendant. Having one improves the experience, but probably isn't worth the cost.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Are you saying that being a server isn't worth anything in a restaurant, because it would be better if everyone served themselves?
I'm saying a server is as unnecessary as a gas station attendant. Having one improves the experience, but probably isn't worth the cost.
My restaurant wouldn't function without servers during a lunch rush. There'd be mass chaos, and no one would be happy. I imagine it'd be much the same way during the dinner rush.
I'm curious as to how, other than a cafeteria, your idea works in practice.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I'd be against it. I actually tip based on service. If I have a lousy experience I don't want to be forced to pay 20% anyway.
This infuriates me whenever I hear it. That tip you pay them at the end of your meal is typically going to be more than they actually get paid by their employer for the time you spent eating there (based on a $20-$30 meal), while the restaurant is making a killing on the profits. Sometimes people have bad nights, and sometimes those bad nights are when you are present. Keep in mind that your tip is putting food on their table, possibly feeding children, and definitely more important than your damaged pride or annoyance at some bad service somewhere. If the service was that bad, then you let the manager know. In many cases, you can get a comped meal for your trouble.
I've never waited a table in my life. My reaction is based on the disgust of the idea of entitlement that drives people to not tip, because it invariably leads to them tipping lower as a habit. Better to complain and force a reprimand to the person, so they know why you are unhappy. Not tipping or tipping poorly just does two things: 1) makes you look like an asshole, and 2) stiffs the person working without letting them know they did an unsatisfactoy job. How would you like it if your boss started docking your pay for some reason, even if a valid one, but not tell you why?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I'm curious as to how, other than a cafeteria, your idea works in practice.
Well, you know those buzzers that they use to indicate that your table's ready? Give every table one such buzzer, and set up -- depending on the size of the restaurant -- five or six "windows" onto the kitchen. As an order comes up, they're buzzed up to the window. If you had a problem with people taking the wrong order, I suppose you could put RFID tags into the buzzers.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
As some one who works at a high traffic restaurant in the kitchen, I have to say that would never work, at least not all the time.
It's work just fine while the restaurant isn't busy, but during a busy shift that would explode into chaos. I'll take you to work with me one day.
I'm not saying it wouldn't work for ALL restaurants. But:
A. It won't work for fine dining. The entire point of fine dining is that it's a step up.
B. It won't work for high traffic restaurants like mine, it's just asking for pissed off customers yelling at cooks, and cooks either ignoring them, being rude to them or outright quitting. We get bitched at enough from everyone else in the restaurant, we don't want to put up with your crap too.
I imagine anyone it'd work for already has such a system. But to be fair. I WOULD agree to a compromise. Let people order the food themselves, and self service drinks, and have someone bring the food out to them, and pay those food runners an hourly rate, but raise the price of food just slightly to cover the cost of the food runner. I think there'd still be kinks in the system, but having everyone rush up to the window to get their food wouldn't work in a million years.
Ah though, I guess I see where part of the problem also comes in, I'm assuming that to ORDER your food you'd make them all stand in a single line with a register, cafeteria style? (Or tacky style, whichever you prefer). I guess if that is the case then your idea works, but again, doesn't work for large restaurants. We have a couple hundred seats to fill, and ALL of them fill up between 11:45 and 12:15 on most week days. No way in a million years is that going to work efficiently.
Maybe if you sat them at the table and they ordered their own food from a computer screen, and the check went back to the kitchen, then a runner brought it out. Again, a healthy compromise.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:it's just asking for pissed off customers yelling at cooks
Which is why there would be one or two intermediaries, to hand out buzzers and act as liaisons. The cooks would ideally be invisible. But bear in mind that order errors should be minimized under this system, since the "server" can't possibly get things wrong.
And, yeah, fine dining would probably still demand servers for another generation or two, since part of fine dining is the whole experience of being serviced by a lower class of people. But that's curable with time.
quote:Ah though, I guess I see where part of the problem also comes in, I'm assuming that to ORDER your food you'd make them all stand in a single line with a register, cafeteria style?
I was thinking that two or three ordering screens at the entry desk, coupled with computer screens at the individual tables, would work fine. And that'd eliminate the need for a buzzer.
Part of the goal would be to completely eliminate the need for runners. It seems to me that having one pick-up window for every server that's currently needed during a rush would give a decent-enough throughput, especially since the window is in almost all ways more efficient. (An even more efficient way would involve robotic transport, but that's got more of a potential for failure and requires more maintenance.)
[ September 13, 2006, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Well hey, it is more efficient. There's no reason for someone to be employed at a restaurant when you can have robots and computers do the work for you. And since the management can reduce expenditure by cutting out most of the payroll it's a win win situation.
I, personally, prefer to have some amount of human interaction when I go into a store or restaurant or whatever. I could just go into a bar and punch in on a screen what I want to drink and have it come out on a conveyor belt, but I would rather there be some guy that's pretty cool and enjoys talking to me and loves doing his job.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name:
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I'd be against it. I actually tip based on service. If I have a lousy experience I don't want to be forced to pay 20% anyway.
This infuriates me whenever I hear it. That tip you pay them at the end of your meal is typically going to be more than they actually get paid by their employer for the time you spent eating there (based on a $20-$30 meal), while the restaurant is making a killing on the profits. Sometimes people have bad nights, and sometimes those bad nights are when you are present. Keep in mind that your tip is putting food on their table, possibly feeding children, and definitely more important than your damaged pride or annoyance at some bad service somewhere. If the service was that bad, then you let the manager know. In many cases, you can get a comped meal for your trouble.
I've never waited a table in my life. My reaction is based on the disgust of the idea of entitlement that drives people to not tip, because it invariably leads to them tipping lower as a habit. Better to complain and force a reprimand to the person, so they know why you are unhappy. Not tipping or tipping poorly just does two things: 1) makes you look like an asshole, and 2) stiffs the person working without letting them know they did an unsatisfactoy job. How would you like it if your boss started docking your pay for some reason, even if a valid one, but not tell you why?
Excuse me, I don't feel "entitled" to anything. And I should point out that where I live, waitstaff get at least minimum wage for their time-- before they're tipped. I tip far above the standard 15% for excellent service, above it for good service, at it for decent service, and below it for poor service. If I don't like the food but the waitperson tries to fix it for me, I take their helpfulness into consideration. If I don't like the food and the waitstaff is rude when I try to get it fixed, I'm not getting what I'm paying for, and I'm not going to tip the waitstaff as much. Simple as that. I am paying for someone to make my food and someone to serve it to me, they need to do their jobs or I'm not going to pay them any more than I absolutely have to.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Tom -
So in your restaurant. I get there at noon and I have to know what I want as soon as I get there, because I have to order at the entry desk and don't get to sit down at my table and look at a menu. Then she hands me a cup and I assume someone shows me to a table, or maybe I just wander around the restaurant trying to find a seat. I wait for my buzzer to go off then go get my food and carry the big hot plate back to my table (I ordered the chicken parm).
But wait, it's wrong! Do I flag down a manager? Do I take it back to the kitchen to shout at a cook? Do I take it back to the front desk and tell the girls at the front counter?
Your restaurant sounds more complicated, for the sake of being "easier" than the one I work at now.
By the way, you're assuming that some or even a majority of food ordering errors are made by the server. While they do get it wrong fairly often, I'd say easily 60-75% of the screwups are from the customers themselves.
What is your measure for fixing screwups under this system? How will people be seated? Do they have to know their order when they get to the restaurant? How do you stop congestion at the window? There's four windows at the restaurant where I work, and if even two people per window came up to try and take their food (keeping in mind that many people DON'T KNOW what the food looks like and it's possible they'll just take anything that looks reasonable) already creates a lot of congestion.
The window where the kitchen is probably isn't going to be right by the door where you have the people taking orders and handing out buzzers before the guests wander off to their tables to wait. So that means you need someone in the back working between the kitchen and the people. That's what I do now incidentally, we're called Expediters. But we don't work with customers, and quite frankly, we don't want to. I imagine it'd only make things harder if we did.
KQ -
Something to take into consideration. The wage the cooks are making is folded into the price of your meal. If you don't like your food, it isn't the fault of the server, it's the cooks' fault. Your tip deals with the service end, not necessarily the quality of the food, they can't control that.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name:
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I'd be against it. I actually tip based on service. If I have a lousy experience I don't want to be forced to pay 20% anyway.
This infuriates me whenever I hear it. That tip you pay them at the end of your meal is typically going to be more than they actually get paid by their employer for the time you spent eating there (based on a $20-$30 meal), while the restaurant is making a killing on the profits. Sometimes people have bad nights, and sometimes those bad nights are when you are present. Keep in mind that your tip is putting food on their table, possibly feeding children, and definitely more important than your damaged pride or annoyance at some bad service somewhere. If the service was that bad, then you let the manager know. In many cases, you can get a comped meal for your trouble.
I've never waited a table in my life. My reaction is based on the disgust of the idea of entitlement that drives people to not tip, because it invariably leads to them tipping lower as a habit. Better to complain and force a reprimand to the person, so they know why you are unhappy. Not tipping or tipping poorly just does two things: 1) makes you look like an asshole, and 2) stiffs the person working without letting them know they did an unsatisfactoy job. How would you like it if your boss started docking your pay for some reason, even if a valid one, but not tell you why?
So instead of arguing in favor of forcing consumers to pay a 20% tip, why not argue in favor of forcing employers to pay a minimum wage?
I've worked in sales (and to a lesser extent customer service) my entire life, and the idea that the salesperson is ENTITLED (to turn your word around) to higher pay because they have kids to feed is downright laughable. I've typically made a crap wage with a commission, and commission is the ONLY way I sell. You have a bad day? You don't get paid that day, and that's the way it should be. Your job, as a waiter and as a salesperson is to never have a bad day. Ever. And if you do, your pay gets docked accordingly. You don't like it? Find another industry to work in. The line that waiting is the standard way for unskilled laborers to make enough money to support a family is a crock.
Your idea of fair is to complain to a manager for terrible service instead of docking a tip? It's brutally obvious you've never worked in the service industry; instead of leading to lower wages, that leads to lost jobs. How will the kids eat when mommy or daddy gets fired?
Try running a business, where you don't GET a wage and your entire income is based on salesmanship and quality service. Then revisit this issue.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I would rather there be some guy that's pretty cool and enjoys talking to me and loves doing his job.
Has this been your service experience, by and large? It has not been mine. It's also been my experience that the cool guy who enjoys talking to me is also considerably more likely to get my order wrong, for some freakish reason; surly waiters are far, far better at actually bringing me what I've ordered, although I have no idea why.
quote:I get there at noon and I have to know what I want as soon as I get there, because I have to order at the entry desk and don't get to sit down at my table and look at a menu.
Like I said, computer stations at each table would be preferable. Not least because a simple database app would make it possible to report order errors and/or service requests instantly.
As for the other question: I'd almost certainly have someone on hand to greet customers and/or assign them seating. That's a clear value-add. And working to minimize pickup errors is certainly doable through a variety of mechanisms.
But there IS a hitch that I thought of that might necessitate some sort of go-between for special cases: ADA and/or ESL cases. You'd need somebody to act on their behalf, and I'm not sure the "greeters" would be able to do this on their own, depending on volume.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Good points all around eros, save one:
At the end of the day, good service is still not always rewarded. The idea that the server should always try as hard as they can to provide good service is a good one, and people should tip according to their good service, but every day I hear about how so and so gave great service to a table and got 5% back on the tip, or STIFFED on a tip. It's not always as easy as saying "Get a new job, find a new industry." Customer service, for better or for worse, is the best thing as far as lack of skill and flexibility of hours goes.
I still think you are more right than wrong, but maybe people who haven't worked in a restaurant here don't realize how demoralizing it can be to deal with a hundred people a day, always giving your best service but not being properly rewarded for it. It wears on you, and eventually they give up and stop giving good service. It's kind of like nice guys finishing last when women really want a bad boy. They don't really reward the good ones.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:I was thinking that two or three ordering screens at the entry desk, coupled with computer screens at the individual tables, would work fine. And that'd eliminate the need for a buzzer.
Except, in Florida, people would think they ordered the Fettuccine Alfredo, and instead end up with Pat Buchanan.
You're assuming a great amount of competance on the part of the customer. Have you ever watched the train wreck that is self-checkout at grocery stores? Sometimes the simplest things can be utterly baffling to a good chunk of the population - especially when you add technology to the mix.
If the world switched to your style of restaurant, Tom, I'd gladly pay 30% extra to eat at any restaurant that worked the way they do now.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Tom -
What is ADA and ESL?
I agree that computers at the tables could immensely streamline the process. Might be less cumbersome for the greeter at the door to hand out wireless tablet PC type device with a touchscreen menu. The menu could have the items, and an easy system for modifications (for example, a burger with no mayo, and a chicken and broccoli penne with with asiago sauce instead of the normal tomato cream). But such a system would have to be extensive. It would have to offer ALL alternatives as far as add ons, subtractions, and substitutions, and would have to have a complete list of ingredients.
Part of what a server does isn't just bringing your food to the table and writing your order down, it's knowing what is in the dishes to avoid allergy issues, and letting you know that there is an upcharge to switch from potato chips to a side caesar salad, etc etc. The system would have to include all that, and I think a tablet PC would be easier than one computer, especially if it's a table of eight people and all are shouting out orders.
Having said all that though, I think the computer sounds like less of a good idea...
I think there still needs to be a facilitator between the back of the house and front of the house, and quite frankly, I still think it would be better and in the end more cost effective to have four or five people running food. The price of the food isn't going to go up at all, if instead of fifteen people on the floor you have five, (except now you have to pay bussers more). I think it works out in the end.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote: At the end of the day, good service is still not always rewarded. The idea that the server should always try as hard as they can to provide good service is a good one, and people should tip according to their good service, but every day I hear about how so and so gave great service to a table and got 5% back on the tip, or STIFFED on a tip. It's not always as easy as saying "Get a new job, find a new industry." Customer service, for better or for worse, is the best thing as far as lack of skill and flexibility of hours goes.
I still think you are more right than wrong, but maybe people who haven't worked in a restaurant here don't realize how demoralizing it can be to deal with a hundred people a day, always giving your best service but not being properly rewarded for it. It wears on you, and eventually they give up and stop giving good service. It's kind of like nice guys finishing last when women really want a bad boy. They don't really reward the good ones.
Believe me, I understand getting stiffed. There will eternally be people who, regardless of the service they receive, either tip poorly as a rule or find excuses to do so. There are also people who understand that waiting is a taxing job, and will tip reasonably well regardless of the service received on principle. I experience the same thing in sales: people who blame me for problems out of my control, and those will go out of their way to ensure I'm the one that gets a commission, etc.
My point, however, is that I find that these events are the exception rather than the rule (in, I'd guess, almost all service situations), and I would rather have bad days as a service worker than flat out punish the consumers.
More things to consider: there are people who will only ever tip 10-15%, at the most, and while that's not great, it's better than nothing. I imagine that a lot of these people will eat less frequently, if at all, at restaurants that automatically include a 20% gratuity.
Another part of the problem is that waiting has come to be viewed as a job that anyone can do and make money at; it isn't. It takes a very specific kind of person to maintain long term success (and, you know, sanity) in any service-centric position. In sales, we've mostly avoided this problem: most people understand that there are people that can sell, and people who just can't, and the people who can't avoid those jobs. But I can't count the number of times I've heard someone with few skills or odd availability say "man, I need to make more money...I know, I'll be a waiter (or bartender)!"
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I, for one, would not want to be the one required to service or clean those computers. There's a reason it's not a good idea to eat spaghetti and meatballs on your computer desk.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Has this been your service experience, by and large? It has not been mine. It's also been my experience that the cool guy who enjoys talking to me is also considerably more likely to get my order wrong, for some freakish reason; surly waiters are far, far better at actually bringing me what I've ordered, although I have no idea why.
Man, it really sucks that you have to put up with that kind of service at the places you go. I guess I don't come across that level of performance very often because I go to places I know and like.
Most of the time, most of the servers at most of the food/beverage serving establishments get the order right. It seems that you've experienced an unfair amount of bad service. For that, I'm sorry, but it's unfair to judge any giver server based on that experience.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, at the restaurant where I work, it IS pretty good money on the whole. But you're certainly right about it taking a specific kind of person.
I see burn out on a weekly basis.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:ESL
English as a Second Language. Not sure about ADA, but I'm betting it has to do with disabilities such as blindness.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: I, for one, would not want to be the one required to service or clean those computers. There's a reason it's not a good idea to eat spaghetti and meatballs on your computer desk.
Which is why, I'd suspect, you leave the computer at the window when you pick up your food.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:My point, however, is that I find that these events are the exception rather than the rule
This depends greatly on your clientele, and the area in which you work.
Saturday nights in the restaurant I worked at in NJ were prime shifts, when you'd make 20-25% on a high volume of sales. Saturday nights in the restaurant I worked at in Atlanta were the worst shifts, when you'd make 10-15% in tips on just as high a volume of sales.
In suburban NJ, bad tippers were the exception, not the rule. In fact, it was rare to get someone tipping 15%, let alone less than that.
In Buckhead in Atlanta, bad tippers were the rule. Some would leave nothing at all, or barely 10%. Others would leave exactly 15% to the penny. Most would estimate what 15% would be, then rounded down to the nearest dollar (so, a $4 tip on a $30 check). Good tippers were rare, and usually tourists.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
So, these computers are portable? In a restautant, with lots of people moving around, many of which are carrying food or drinks?
I amend what I said. I wouldn't want to be the person sweeping up all the bits of plastic.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:In Buckhead in Atlanta, bad tippers were the rule. Some would leave nothing at all, or barely 10%. Others would leave exactly 15% to the penny.
So tipping 15% now makes you a bad tipper?
Tipping sucks.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote: Saturday nights in the restaurant I worked at in NJ were prime shifts, when you'd make 20-25% on a high volume of sales. Saturday nights in the restaurant I worked at in Atlanta were the worst shifts, when you'd make 10-15% in tips on just as high a volume of sales.
In suburban NJ, bad tippers were the exception, not the rule. In fact, it was rare to get someone tipping 15%, let alone less than that.
In Buckhead in Atlanta, bad tippers were the rule. Some would leave nothing at all, or barely 10%. Others would leave exactly 15% to the penny. Most would estimate what 15% would be, then rounded down to the nearest dollar (so, a $4 tip on a $30 check). Good tippers were rare, and usually tourists.
Like I said, my information is incomplete (as it would have to be, having not worked at every restaurant in America!), and I'm forced to resort to generalizations.
By and large, however, I'll continue to maintain that the tips generally average out. There will always be notable exceptions in both directions (and areas like that part of Atlanta, where the situation is just plain unfortunate), but even assuming, say, 33.3% average tip jobs, 33.3% exceptional tip jobs and 33.3% poor tip jobs, that's still 66.6% of the jobs being average or better.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: So, these computers are portable? In a restautant, with lots of people moving around, many of which are carrying food or drinks?
I amend what I said. I wouldn't want to be the person sweeping up all the bits of plastic.
Gimme a break! I'm flowing with a new idea. Personally I think everything is fine the way it is, I'm just trying to give an honest shake to Tom's idea.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Have you ever watched the train wreck that is self-checkout at grocery stores? Sometimes the simplest things can be utterly baffling to a good chunk of the population - especially when you add technology to the mix.
Um, I've never seen them working any way other than smoothly. They're great, and I love them.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn KQ -
Something to take into consideration. The wage the cooks are making is folded into the price of your meal. If you don't like your food, it isn't the fault of the server, it's the cooks' fault. Your tip deals with the service end, not necessarily the quality of the food, they can't control that.
quote: If I don't like the food but the waitperson tries to fix it for me, I take their helpfulness into consideration. If I don't like the food and the waitstaff is rude when I try to get it fixed, I'm not getting what I'm paying for, and I'm not going to tip the waitstaff as much.
Sounds to me like she said she does take that into consideration.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn At the end of the day, good service is still not always rewarded. The idea that the server should always try as hard as they can to provide good service is a good one, and people should tip according to their good service, but every day I hear about how so and so gave great service to a table and got 5% back on the tip, or STIFFED on a tip.
And the article linked in the opening post said that waitstaff average before 15% - 17% in tips. So at the end of the day, it sounds like the system is working out more often than not.
When you say you hear every day about people being stiffed, I'm sure you do. But that's because people talk about the tables who stiffed them, or the ones that really tipped well. They don't talk about the vast majoriy that tip 12% - 20%, leaving them with that 15% - 17% average. And yes, I've waited tables. And I always bitched when I was stiffed, or when I thought the bussers were skimming my tips off the table.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think the current system is just fine.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: This infuriates me whenever I hear it. ...My reaction is based on the disgust of the idea of entitlement that drives people to not tip, because it invariably leads to them tipping lower as a habit.
What infuriates me is the restaurant owner who feels entitled to take a huge markup on the food his or her establishment serves and then feels entitled to make his or her customers pay his waitstaff's wages so that he or she doesn't have to do so.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: So instead of arguing in favor of forcing consumers to pay a 20% tip, why not argue in favor of forcing employers to pay a minimum wage?
I've worked in sales (and to a lesser extent customer service) my entire life, and the idea that the salesperson is ENTITLED (to turn your word around) to higher pay because they have kids to feed is downright laughable. I've typically made a crap wage with a commission, and commission is the ONLY way I sell. You have a bad day? You don't get paid that day, and that's the way it should be. Your job, as a waiter and as a salesperson is to never have a bad day. Ever. And if you do, your pay gets docked accordingly. You don't like it? Find another industry to work in. The line that waiting is the standard way for unskilled laborers to make enough money to support a family is a crock.
Your idea of fair is to complain to a manager for terrible service instead of docking a tip? It's brutally obvious you've never worked in the service industry; instead of leading to lower wages, that leads to lost jobs. How will the kids eat when mommy or daddy gets fired?
Try running a business, where you don't GET a wage and your entire income is based on salesmanship and quality service. Then revisit this issue.
You complain about people losing a job in a service industry, and then you talk about running a business? Two completely different things, since the food service industry is not modeled the same as a product or trade services model. Don't question my credentials right after you have made absurd equivocations.
The point is that no one is entitled to anything. However, the point of gratuity is not to pay for something someone is entitled to. But let's take your ridiculous equivocation and put it in proper context. A food server, or wait-staff, are not an employee of the restaurant in the same manner as a chef or cook. The wait-staff is working commission, but unlike a sales commission a food server gets commission for mitigating between the chef or cook and the customer for the restaurant. You tip food servers to pay for the convenience of having someone order, track, and deliver your food to your table. They are playing the part of a middle-man in the dealing between the customer and the restaurant, but the customer is not there to be convinced to eat there. The customer who has been seated has already decided to eat there. There are absolutely responsibilities for the server in attending the customer's needs. However, the final check you get at the end of the meal is not being paid to the server, it is being paid to the restaurant.
Yes, if a person repeatedly provides poor service, they are going to get fired and not make any more money from that position. Employment laws in most states do not allow for a business to fire an employee without providing a modicum of justification, and if you have such an inflated sense of importance that you believe your complaint is worth that much weight- "yes, sir, ersomniac was displeased with the service, so you must be fired" -then this discussion is really going to go nowhere. Most businesses have a requirement of at least two, but usually three, instances of poor performance with a repremand after the first instance (and the second, if applicable). If a person is a repeatedly poor service person, then they should reevaluate their place in such an environment. So, to answer your challenge of running a business, it is fairly obvious you have never had to deal with having employees or you would have never made such a poor argument. Things don't work the way your scenario plays out unless there is a chronic problem, at which point that becomes an issue between the restaurant and the server. Not paying a tip results in the poor service never coming to the attention of the restaurant, which means you are allowing the problem to continue instead of doing something positive. So, unless you are actually telling the food server why you are not tipping or tipping so poorly, then you are just shrugging off the behavior to others.
The point is that people who even have to consider whether to tip are not are displaying a parsimonious self-righteousnesness. Whether they did a poor job or spectacular job, they are still doing a job. Stiffing them on the check is not going to stop it, and is one of those dozens of little selfish habits that people have that propagates the inflated sense of entitlement in popular culture.
Tom, "serve yourself" restaurants would never work in anything but the niches where they already exist. The selection of the dishes would become stunted, and any art to food preparation would be essentially be relegated only to the wealthy and a few street vendors. We already have all-you-can-eat buffets for the people who don't care about being able to specify exactly how they want their meal prepared for themselves. We already have fast food joints for a quick and easy grab-and-go meal. Just because you consider yourself happy enough, smart enough, savvy enough, or whatever enough to prefer such a model doesn't necessarily make it the most pragmatic.
quote:Originally posted by littlemissattitude: What infuriates me is the restaurant owner who feels entitled to take a huge markup on the food his or her establishment serves and then feels entitled to make his or her customers pay his waitstaff's wages so that he or she doesn't have to do so.
That kind of ticks me off, too. Stiffing the food servers is not going to scratch that itch.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Speaking as one who once waited tables (I worked for the Cracker Barrel), I have to say, that quality of service is not represented by tips. Some of the worst members of our waitstaff made the largest tips. (Men also make better money than women, go figure.) The restaurant paid me $2.18/hr, base salary. Essentially, as someone who actually declared all of my tips, I made just enough money from the restaurant to cover my taxes on what I had earned plus about enough for a lunch at McDonalds every week.
On a Saturday or a Sunday I could earn about $10/hour in tips so I tried to work 12 hour shifts on both days whenever possible. I made the majority of my money on the weekends. If I worked both Sat. and Sun. 12 hours both days, I walked away with approximately $240, sometimes more, sometimes less. Monday thru Thursday were crummy days to work, I often left the restaurant with as little as $20 in my pocket. Friday nights could go either way. If it was a holiday weekend we'd make good money, if not it was up for grabs. So, if you assume that I worked Saturday and Sunday plus a couple more days a week, I was earning approximately $300/week after tax, totalling at $1200/month.
In a way though, I was lucky. At the Cracker Barrel, wait staff don't carry a register in their apron. For those who have never waited a table let me clarify. At most restaurants (pretty much any place where a member of the wait staff picks the check up from the table, runs the card or gives you your change) the server carries a register in their apron. At the end of the night the manager prints out a receipt and says, "You sold $xxx.xx of food today, pay up." The server has to hand over receipts and cash totalling that amount. Anything left over is theirs. That means that if someone leaves without paying, the server pays for it out of their tips. I also didn't have to tip out the hostess or the bar. Many restaurants also employ tip sharing, the bartender and host/hostess get a percentage of each servers tips.
I had regulars that often tipped well and asked to be seated in my section. There were people who I could order for before they sat at the table. There were other regulars I hated, people who never tipped, no matter how hard you worked for them.
$1200 per month isn't much money, even for a single woman with a roommate. Servers don't make enough money, and if a restaurant isn't going to pay their servers minimum wage before tips then gratuity should be included in their checks.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
Don't know if anyone's mentioned it, but the restaurant I worked at for 2 years is an Italian chain called Fazoli's (in between fast food and sit-down). They bring around free breadsticks and USED to have 2 runners bring food to all the tables--very hectic.
Just when I started, they had changed to the buzzer system, where guests order up front (fast-food style) and get buzzed when their food's ready. The results were incredibly streamlined and much more guest-friendly. Instead of having two runners moving frantically around the dining area, the two runners became "service leaders" (waiters without the title) which actually improved the restaurant's image (allowing corporate to jack up prices, etc.)
Forced tipping is criminal.
Even more criminal though--people who tip less than 15%
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name:
Yes, if a person repeatedly provides poor service, they are going to get fired and not make any more money from that position. Employment laws in most states do not allow for a business to fire an employee without providing a modicum of justification, and if you have such an inflated sense of importance that you believe your complaint is worth that much weight- "yes, sir, ersomniac was displeased with the service, so you must be fired" -then this discussion is really going to go nowhere.
Wow, here in South Carolina (and in Virginia where I lived previously) we have At Will Employment. You can be fired at anytime, no reason provided.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: Forced tipping is criminal.
Not really. Lots of really expensive restaurants include gratuity here in the US. In most countries in Europe, gratuity is included in the check and servers expect you to leave them money over and above the specified amount.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:The point is that no one is entitled to anything. However, the point of gratuity is not to pay for something someone is entitled to. But let's take your ridiculous equivocation and put it in proper context. A food server, or wait-staff, are not an employee of the restaurant in the same manner as a chef or cook. The wait-staff is working commission, but unlike a sales commission a food server gets commission for mitigating between the chef or cook and the customer for the restaurant. You tip food servers to pay for the convenience of having someone order, track, and deliver your food to your table. They are playing the part of a middle-man in the dealing between the customer and the restaurant, but the customer is not there to be convinced to eat there. The customer who has been seated has already decided to eat there. There are absolutely responsibilities for the server in attending the customer's needs. However, the final check you get at the end of the meal is not being paid to the server, it is being paid to the restaurant.
Do you understand the commissioned salesman model? I don't think you do, at all, since you dodged my repeated comparisons to sales, choosing instead to focus on my parting shot as though it were the point of my post. The above demonstrates a marked lack of the aforementioned understanding.
quote:Yes, if a person repeatedly provides poor service, they are going to get fired and not make any more money from that position. Employment laws in most states do not allow for a business to fire an employee without providing a modicum of justification, and if you have such an inflated sense of importance that you believe your complaint is worth that much weight- "yes, sir, ersomniac was displeased with the service, so you must be fired" -then this discussion is really going to go nowhere.
Having been in a position both to make the complaints (and watch them work, often with hilarious consequences) and help make decisions on continued employment, I can assure you it very often takes as little as one or two complaints to end a job.
You clearly don't know how to effectively communicate with management, owners, and decision makers. It's very, very easy to have a measurable negative OR positive effect on most service-related employees you encounter. It doesn't require a deluded sense of self-importance on the part of the customer.
Because guess what? We're in America. "The customer is always right" isn't completely accurate, but it's definitely the general mindset behind capitalist business. If you can demonstrate to an employer that it is worth more to him to get rid of an employee than to keep him, you can bet your sweet butt that most of the time, the employee will be gone.
quote:So, to answer your challenge of running a business, it is fairly obvious you have never had to deal with having employees or you would have never made such a poor argument.
quote:Not paying a tip results in the poor service never coming to the attention of the restaurant, which means you are allowing the problem to continue instead of doing something positive. So, unless you are actually telling the food server why you are not tipping or tipping so poorly, then you are just shrugging off the behavior to others.
And encouraging a 20% automatic gratuity HELPS? Guaranteeing that EVERY SERVER, regardless of ability, will get the same tips is going to improve (or even maintain) the level of service?
I also like how you assume that people who decide to penalize a server will leave no tip. Did you read the responses in this thread, where several people pointed out that when they tip "badly," they're still tipping as high as 10-15%?
Seriously, what planet are you on?
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote:Even more criminal though--people who tip less than 15%
Please tell me you're not advocating tipping 15% at a place like Fazolis.
When did 20% become the standard tip? Hatrack is the first place I've ever heard that. It's been 15% as long as I've been eating out and I haven't heard anywhere else that it's changed.
Regarding forced gratuities, you don't have to pay the gratuity even if it's already tacked onto your bill. It is a gratuity and if you feel the service was so lousy that you refuse to pay it, talk to the manager. The one time I did, it was a pain, but the service for our group was horrible and I was not going to pay 18% for service that bad.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Forget tipping. Raise the prices of the food, and if the service is absolutely extraordinary, tip 5% in cash.
What is happening here is wages rising without the restaurants wanting to raise their prices. The reason the rate for tipping has gone up is precisely because minimum wage hasn't been budged in over a decade. If we eliminate tipping and have the wages reflect the actual cost of labor, there wouldn't be this.
I hate the idea of low tipping for bad service because it isn't negotiated up front. If I go into a restaurant, then the experience is a crapshoot. We've already committed to each other to be together for the duration of the meal, so low tipping at the end of it is stiffing the waitstaff.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Forget tipping. Raise the prices of the food, and if the service is absolutely extraordinary, tip 5% in cash.
What is happening here is wages rising without the restaurants wanting to raise their prices. The reason the rate for tipping has gone up is precisely because minimum wage hasn't been budged in over a decade. If we eliminate tipping and have the wages reflect the actual cost of labor, there wouldn't be this.
Absolutely.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote:I hate the idea of low tipping for bad service because it isn't negotiated up front. If I go into a restaurant, then the experience is a crapshoot. We've already committed to each other to be together for the duration of the meal, so low tipping at the end of it is stiffing the waitstaff.
But if the waitstaff gives you bad service, wouldn't you consider that you had been stiffed. I don't think it needs to be negotiated. It's already assumed that bad service will get a bad tip and exemplary service will get a great tip.
BTW, Florida's minimum wage has gone up, so maybe that's why 15% is still the norm. Servers in Florida get a minimum of $3.13/hr.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:You have a bad day? You don't get paid that day, and that's the way it should be. Your job, as a waiter and as a salesperson is to never have a bad day. Ever. And if you do, your pay gets docked accordingly.
I don't think it's necessary to never have a bad day. I do think it's essential to not let it affect your work disposition, which is a useful skill in any profession.
ADA = Americans with Disabilities Act ESL = English as a Second Language
Posted by Zemra (Member # 5706) on :
I was thinking of an incident when my nephew came to USA visiting from Germany and decided to order a large Pizza. The pizza guy delivered it and my nephew gave him a tip for 1 American dollar, he was fillig generous. His cousin run after the pizza guy and gave him extra tip for the delivery. My nephew could not understand why his cousin was doing that since in Germany they don’t feel obligated to tip, so needless to say he found it quite strange that we are paying someone to just deliver our food. When we went to Germany my nephew told me that waiters love Americans since they tip well.I have visited Germany and England and we are not required to leave a tip let alone add that to the bill automatically. The same goes also for restaurants. I am the kind of person that will tip at least 25% if the waiter is good. All I require is that they fill my glass with water as many times as I need and bring the food to me warm. Is that so much to ask? I find myself sometimes thirsty and not able to get the waiters attention to get me some water. I consider that a very bad service and I will tip accordingly. In situations like that I will only tip 10 to max 15% are you to tell me that no matter how crappy the service is the waiter is still going to get 20%. I don’t see how the industry is going to better themselves when there is no incentive. I am completely against the tip being added to the bill, I would rather decide how much a waiter gets on tips by their service. I am for advocating that they have an increase in their base pay from the owner of the restaurant but that is as far as it goes. This is just my two cents
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by FlyingCow: Have you ever watched the train wreck that is self-checkout at grocery stores? Sometimes the simplest things can be utterly baffling to a good chunk of the population - especially when you add technology to the mix. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Um, I've never seen them working any way other than smoothly. They're great, and I love them.
I love them, too. But only if there isn't a line. I've stood in lines for self-checkout and wanted to just take the food from the people and do it myself. And it boggles the mind when someone starts checking out there with obviously more food than will fit on the weight-sensitive platform in bags, and needs to call a manager to override the system to let them continue checking out. Just dumb people. Trust me, they're out there.
quote:Please tell me you're not advocating tipping 15% at a place like Fazolis.
I don't know Fazolis. I looked it up on the web, and it appears to be like a Chilis, Macaroni Grill, Olive Garden, ChiChis, etc sort of place.
And yes, you should be tipping at least 15% there, as well. What would make you think that you shouldn't?
If anything, I tend to tip more at a place like that, because the cost of my meal is a lot lower, and I know that 15% of a cheap meal is a lot less in the server's pocket than 15% of an expensive one - for essentially the same amount of time, effort, and service.
quote:When did 20% become the standard tip? Hatrack is the first place I've ever heard that. It's been 15% as long as I've been eating out and I haven't heard anywhere else that it's changed.
I'm going to assume here that you don't have any friends who have waited tables in the last 5 - 10 years. The sentiment among servers I've worked with is that less than 15% is a cheapskate, 15% is adequate but also "bare minimum", 17-18% is standard, 20% is good, and more than 20% is very good.
When I said the 15% "to the penny" line, I really meant that on a $37.50 check, someone would leave $5.63 on their credit card - not even rounding that up to $6 (which is 16%)
On a related note:
I know if my girlfriend and I are sitting at a four person table in a family-style chain restaurant, and we order cheaper meals - let's say $12 or so per entree - and sodas, that the bill is only going to come to $28-30 or so - which, at 20% comes to an $6 tip ($4 at 15%). If the average meal cost in the restaurant is $20, and that four person table were filled, the check would come to closer to $90 ($18 at 20%, $14 at 15%). Our sitting at that table for a standard length of time (instead of that server getting four people seated) is costing the waiter between $10-12 dollars. If we linger, taking up a large amount of time and preventing that table from being used again until we leave, we're costing the waiter a lot more than that.
In such a situation, I figure out 20%, then throw a couple more dollars on top. If I'm lingering at a table, I'll throw a few more dollars on top of that, essentially for "renting" that space.
There's nothing worse than having two campers at a 4-top table who finish their meal just as the dinner rush starts, then linger over the last drops of soda in their glasses talking for an hour while the dinner rush comes and goes. That's potentially two seatings lost on that one table, for a possible loss of $40-$60 in tips. Then to have that same table leave only 15% on their already cheap meal?
quote:Do you understand the commissioned salesman model?
I preface this by saying that I don't think I fully understand the commissioned salesman model, but that I feel there are distinct differences between that and the tip model.
A commissioned salesman knows what percent commission he will get if he sells something, but there's no guarantee he'll sell something when he has a customer. A waiter does not know what percent he will get off his sales, but has a guarantee that he'll sell something to every customer he has.
That's a pretty big difference, to me. Enough not to be able to meaningfully compare the two models.
quote:And encouraging a 20% automatic gratuity HELPS? Guaranteeing that EVERY SERVER, regardless of ability, will get the same tips is going to improve (or even maintain) the level of service?
Not defending the auto-tip here, but that happens already. Every server, regardless of ability, gets essentially the same tips. Good tippers (20% or more) will leave good tips regardless of service, and bad tippers (less than 15%) will leave bad tips regardless of service. Service may swing that number 2-3% (at most 5%), but that's not really significant.
The average customer who routinely tips 10% will not suddenly tip 20% for good service. The average customer who routinely tips 20% will not suddently tip 10% for bad service.
The best server in the world can have a string of stingy tippers and make very little money, and the worst server in the world can have a string of businessmen on expense accounts and make a killing.
Tip amount has far, far more to do with the customer than it does with the quality of service.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:But if the waitstaff gives you bad service, wouldn't you consider that you had been stiffed. I don't think it needs to be negotiated. It's already assumed that bad service will get a bad tip and exemplary service will get a great tip.
You may assume that.
Waitstaff does not. Too much experience with exemplary service receiving bad tips and bad service getting a great tip has shown to servers that there is very little parity between service quality and tip amount.
While the customer may think that, it is not true in the least. Bad tippers leave bad tips. Good tippers leave good tips. The small percentage of "conditional tippers" who vary their tip amount is not significant at the end of the night - leading to maybe a net difference of a few dollars.
Here's an idea:
What if there was a "tip counter" on the table, and every five minutes you could either bump it up a percent or down a percent? It could start at 18% at the start of the meal - then if people don't want to tip that much, they can lower it to 15% (or lower) during the course of the meal or raise it to 20% (or higher) during the course of the meal.
The reading at the end of the meal is automatically added to the bill, though customers could always go higher (but not lower).
That would allow the server to know when a table is unhappy (tip starts going down near the middle or end of the meal). It would also let the servers know what tables are the cheapskates up front, so they wouldn't have to bust their hump for a table that will give them only 10% no matter what.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:But if the waitstaff gives you bad service, wouldn't you consider that you had been stiffed.
yeah, but that's part of the risk anytime I decide to conduct a transaction. If I decide to buy tickets to a play and the acting is bad, I don't get my money back. So, I read reviews and listen to reccomendations and try to judicious in my decisions of which play to go to.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Fazolis is not like Chilis, etc. It's more like BackYard Burger. You order your food at a counter, get your own drink and any refills, get your own utensils, napkins, etc. and put your garbage in the trash on the way out. The only difference between Fazolis and a typical fast food place is that they bring you breadsticks during the meal and I believe they bring out your food when it's ready.
I see your point about 2 people taking up a 4-person table, but generally, the customers don't get to choose the table. I never linger at a table, especially when it's crowded, but why should I pay more for the same service because I wasn't seated at a 2-person table. I understand that the waiter loses money, but I'm on a budget too.
The 15% that's in my head is based on what I see on menus. I live in Orlando - the tourist mecca of America. Because many foreigners aren't familiar with tipping, many restaurants in Orlando include a statement that says that tipping is customary and what the percentage should be. I'll look the next time I'm out, but I'm pretty sure they say 15%.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: What if there was a "tip counter" on the table, and every five minutes you could either bump it up a percent or down a percent? It could start at 18% at the start of the meal - then if people don't want to tip that much, they can lower it to 15% (or lower) during the course of the meal or raise it to 20% (or higher) during the course of the meal.
I actually like that idea. But of course, the cheapskates would set it at 20% near the beginning and then drop it right at the end of the meal.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The best server in the world can have a string of stingy tippers and make very little money, and the worst server in the world can have a string of businessmen on expense accounts and make a killing.
Tip amount has far, far more to do with the customer than it does with the quality of service.
If the servers believe this is true, then the assumed contract between server and servee is already broken. If so, why should I tip at all?
If it's so that the server earns enough money, well, that's between the server and their employer.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Would you stop going out to eat if restaurants automatically added 20% to the check for gratuity?
I would still go, just as long as they lowered the menu prices at the restaurant 20% accordingly.
But seriously, adding an automatic tip is just asneaky way to raise prices otherwise. If a restaurant thinks servers should automatically get more money, they should pay them more in salary, and raise their prices to compensate. Don't put one price on the menu, but then expect us to pay 20% more than that price, automatically.
The entire point of a tip is to reward good service above bad service. That's why the customer is given the option of tipping more or less. But if it is no longer about service, then I don't think it makes sense to have an extra hidden cost that customers have to pay for a meal. A better practice, if we truly don't care about rewarding good service, might be to (1) legally ban giving tips, (2) force restaurants to pay higher wages to compensate. That way, the menu is clear in telling the customer exactly what he will pay for a meal, and the server is clear on exactly what he will be paid for serving that meal.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Don't put one price on the menu, but then expect us to pay 20% more than that price, automatically.
I think the same thing should be true of sales tax. Give me a single price, and I'll decide if I want to pay it or not.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:If the servers believe this is true, then the assumed contract between server and servee is already broken. If so, why should I tip at all?
The servers believe that they'll get *something*. It's very rare that you get stiffed entirely.
But the servers also generate their own table prejudices and can "call" the percent of a table before they even approach it. I've seen friendly pools (no money involved) on just how bad or how good a tip would be from a table - and most people were not far off. There were very few surprises.
I will say that as much as good service does not generate good tips, good/bad tips will generate good/bad service.
If I had a customer that I remembered as being a good tipper, they would get a greater percentage of my time. If I had a customer that I remembered as a lousy tipper, they would get a lower percentage of my time.
For business lunches with six guys in suits? You bend over backwards, because likely the entire meal is on an expense account including the tip, and the guy paying wants to look generous to the others at the table.
For a group of three women dressed up to go to the club right after dinner, I learned not to expect much no matter how much I bent over backwards. They were already calculating the money they'd be spending later, and tipped a lot lower than average.
quote:The entire point of a tip is to reward good service above bad service.
In the mind of the customer.
In reality, the point of a tip is to pay for your service as a separate expense from your food. The restaurant is not paying the servers a fair wage for their efforts, assuming they will get tips. So, the service provided by the waitstaff is not included in the cost of the meal. The server is being paid directly by the customer for their efforts through tips.
If you choose not to tip at all, you are essentially stealing the services/time of your server - like jumping out of a cab without paying. If you tip the standard amount (whatever it is in your area), you are compensating your server for their time and efforts (giving them their fair wage). If you tip well, you are compensating your server for their time and giving them a bonus for their efforts.
quote:A better practice, if we truly don't care about rewarding good service, might be to (1) legally ban giving tips, (2) force restaurants to pay higher wages to compensate. That way, the menu is clear in telling the customer exactly what he will pay for a meal, and the server is clear on exactly what he will be paid for serving that meal.
I don't have a problem with a "no tip" policy. In fact, I've worked as a bartender for parties that didn't allow tipping (it was made clear up front to the guests). My wage was negotiated ahead of time, that I would be paid X for Y hours of service.
It's all about customer awareness, though.
If a restaurant wanted to pay its servers $14 per hour, and raise the cost of the meal accordingly, they would have to publicize that and let every table know that tips were *not* expected, because the waiters were making $14 per hour instead of the standard $2.30 per hour (or whatever it is in your state).
By the same token, though, restaurants should be required to say just how much they're paying their waitstaff per hour (say, $2.30/hr) and make it clear that the restaurant is paying for pre-shift setup/washdown/duties and not for actual food service -- that cost is the burden of the customer.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I have tons of plans for opening a restaurant that eliminates a lot of the service problems that I see currently plaguing the service industry in general.
The main thrust of the plan is to pay my waitstaff on the order of 9 bucks an hour while only hiring the very best waiters. I'll pay them more, but make it clear to them that customer service is priority #1.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:I understand that the waiter loses money, but I'm on a budget too.
Just wanted to respond to this, too, and I don't want this to sound like an attack, because it isn't.
This statement frustrates me to no end.
Far too many people who are "on a budget" go out to restaurants and shortchange their servers. It is not the server's fault that these people shouldn't be eating in a restaurant if they aren't prepared and able to compensate him for his service.
This was the case in Atlanta. The people we'd get into the restaurant were from lower-income areas of the town who came to Buckhead to party, and they really didn't have the money to be eating out. They would pay for the food, try to get as many "extras" as they could, try to get as much food comped as they could, then would leave a tiny tip (8-12%) or none at all.
(Many would buy drinks at the bar, then try to sit at a table in your section - ordering nothing, and tipping nothing, but taking up your seats. Others would sit in your section while waiting for friends to arrive for the club down the block, and order one drink among the four of them - and then wouldn't tip.)
I understand that the tip was probably low because they couldn't afford more. But, if you can't afford to eat out, don't. Why should the server be penalized because he gets customers who can't afford to pay for his time, when that table could just as easily have been sat with customers who were more economically capable.
If someone goes out to eat, they should expect to tip their server at least 15% - otherwise, they should get take-out or go to the grocery store.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:The main thrust of the plan is to pay my waitstaff on the order of 9 bucks an hour while only hiring the very best waiters.
Would they also be making the same tips, or would their wage just be $9/hr? And where would this be located? In NJ, even making 12% tips, you're probably making better than $9 per hour. I made roughly 20% in tips up here, and pulled closer to $18 an hour - and that was in a Macaroni Grill. Still, though, waiters don't usually work a 40 hour week, so that's not as great as it seems.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:that cost is the burden of the customer.
Says who? When I go out to eat, the restaurant doesn't pay me enough to be responsible for the wages of the serving staff.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
When you go out to eat, you're benefiting from lowered food costs because the restaurant isn't taking responsibility for the wages of the serving staff.
So, yes, you're saving money, because the cost of service has been moved onto your shoulders.
If you want the restaurant to pay their cusomters an adequate wage, be prepared to pay (at least) 20% more for every food item.
But, then, that's what a mandatory 20% tip would do anyway.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I'm posting without reading every post in the thread again...
But I just wanted to say manditory 20% tipping wouldn't make me stop going to restaurants... But the bad service from people who didn't care how they treated you because they were going to get their pound of flesh anyway just might.
In any event, 20% is less than I normally tip (for good/average service) anyway so it would actually cut how much the wait staff gets from me. The only people who benefitted from this would be the people who wait 30 min to take my order and then bring me cold food an hour later.
Pix
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Would they also be making the same tips, or would their wage just be $9/hr? And where would this be located? In NJ, even making 12% tips, you're probably making better than $9 per hour. I made roughly 20% in tips up here, and pulled closer to $18 an hour - and that was in a Macaroni Grill. Still, though, waiters don't usually work a 40 hour week, so that's not as great as it seems.
This would be in a place in Louisiana that has a very low cost of living, and where no waiters make even 5 bucks an hour. They could also still receive tips, though I would put out a sign that said tips were not necessary. I imagine that the majority of diners would still tip anyway, as it's so ingrained it'd be hard to just stop.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
It's amazing, too, because the truly good waiters, who have learned the art of food service, generally work in restaurants that even 10% of the meal would astounding.
For instance, at Per Se in Manhattan, an average meal per person is $210 I think, with an automatic 20% gratuity. That's not including wine. For a table of 4, that's $168 - not including wine. And that's per table, per night.
My friend just went there with his wife and her law firm coworkers, ten people total. The server made over $500 on that one group. If it were 10% tip, he'd still have made over $250.
Servers at that level don't worry about tips so much. It's the single mother of two working in a Chili's that worries most about percent.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: Far too many people who are "on a budget" go out to restaurants and shortchange their servers. It is not the server's fault that these people shouldn't be eating in a restaurant if they aren't prepared and able to compensate him for his service.
I just wanted to make sure you knew I was only speaking about the instance you brought up regarding 2 people at a 4-person table and paying a higher tip because of it. I completely agree that if you can't afford the meal and the tip, you shouldn't be eating there.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm surprised that more restaurants aren't self-service, considering that a poor service experience is actually one of the most common complaints about restaurants. What does having a waitstaff actually bring to the experience, besides complimentary breadsticks and a heaping load of guilt?
I fall into the strongly disagree with forcing me to pay as if I had been served well. My tipping is completely based on service not at all on food quality.
Completely agree with Tom, I actually go to restaurants on occasion because I don't HAVE to tip anybody, I'm broke, what can I say?
I honestly do not feel it is important to have anybody serve me. There is a restaurant in Utah where every table has a phone and you simply phone in your order and they call you back once your food is done. You get up and go collect it, add condiments as desired. If you want a free refill, get up go back to the counter and they will pour it for you.
I am a generous tipper, but I am just as happy to avoid paying a waiter as I am more then willing to pick up my own food, or even make several trips and pick up everybody at the table's food.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:I am a generous tipper, but I am just as happy to avoid paying a waiter as I am more then willing to pick up my own food, or even make several trips and pick up everybody at the table's food.
And there are restaurants that accomodate your wishes - McDonald's is one, buffets are another. I'm sure there are several more. I just don't agree with Tom that *all* restaurants could operate this way, because they can't.
Though, I'd love to see customers set fire to their own crepe suzette, of course.
quote:I just wanted to make sure you knew I was only speaking about the instance you brought up regarding 2 people at a 4-person table and paying a higher tip because of it. I completely agree that if you can't afford the meal and the tip, you shouldn't be eating there.
I understand that. It's just something I do, having worked as a server for a few years. If I know that, through my actions/ordering/etc, I am becoming a low-spending table and decreasing a server's table value, I'll tip slightly more.
That's just courtesy, in my mind, not anything that I would try to enforce as common practice.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name:
quote:Originally posted by littlemissattitude: What infuriates me is the restaurant owner who feels entitled to take a huge markup on the food his or her establishment serves and then feels entitled to make his or her customers pay his waitstaff's wages so that he or she doesn't have to do so.
That kind of ticks me off, too. Stiffing the food servers is not going to scratch that itch.
Um.....who said I was "stiffing the food servers"? I believe that I posted earlier that I tip based on the service I get. If I don't get good service, I don't tip very much; if I do get good service I tip quite well, thanks. I fail to see why I am obligated to give a good tip when service is subpar.
Someone (I'm sorry that I can't recall who it was) gave the example of an individual having a bad day, and implying that their tips shouldn't suffer because of that. But, you know, when I was in school, there were times that I did poorly on exams because I was having a bad day. That didn't mean - I don't think - that I should have been given free points on those exams. I did how I did and got rewarded (with a grade, good or bad) according to that, not according to how well I would have done if I was having a good day.
I've never waited tables, but I have worked in retail, and part of what I was being paid (badly, I might add) for was to be pleasant to the customers and to carry out my job duties competently and efficiently, no matter what kind of a day I was having personally.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
I hate forced tipping. My base tip is 20%, I add more for good service, subtract for bad service. For truly terrible service even after I've let the server know I was unhappy, I have on rare occasions tipped nothing.
It never ocurred to me that anyone might tip based on food quality. The server doesn't control that.
I also don't care if the server makes a mistake. Bringing me Coke when I ordered Dr Pepper -- everyone makes mistakes. It's when they don't try that I get bothered. When I finished my drink and can't eat any more until I get more beverage, and they haven't checked back in 15 minutes. When they bring the food but no silverware, and take 5 full minutes to come back with it. When they know we're unhappy and they've screwed up, and make no effort to not keep on making mistakes, showing their almost complete inattention.
Forced tipping is just a dishonest tax. With sales tax, it might be nice to have the "real" price up front, but it's the government forcing the business to add tax, why should they include the tax in the price if others don't? It'll make their prices seem higher. And if they did include it, and we all got used to it, the gov't would probably decide to just raise taxes, since it would be a lot more transparent to the consumer; it'd just look like stores raised their prices.
But with forced tipping, the restaurant is just playing a shell game with your money. They say dinner costs $20, but it really costs $33. If you're going to include the tip, then just raise prices and eliminate tipping.
Many restaurants I've been to say they will include gratuity on the bill for parties of 6 or more. I don't think that's ever happened to me.
I'll tell you though, I wouldn't feel the least bit immoral leaving a lower tip and just walking out. Let them try to arrest me. If I *have* to pay it, if it's not a gratutity (root definition, free gift!), then they are advertising their prices falsely. Let 'em sue.
If the service was not terrible, then I'd pay the gratuity, but not a penny over. Which would be them shooting themselves in the foot, since I normally tip above their "forced tip."
But yeah, I probably wouldn't want to eat out as much.
The whole reason to go out is the experience. If the server makes it unhappy for me, and I have to pay them even though I didn't get anything close to what I was led to expect, I'll snap and break up the place. Not really, but lowering my tip is what I do instead of getting up and talking to the manager. Which I don't want to do since confrontation makes me unhappy as well.
So if I really have no choice but to tip no matter what the service is like, then I would consider the restaurants dishonest with their advertised prices and not want to go there. Or I'd take a pen and just start crossing out their prices on the menu and writing the real ones.
If servers give me lousy service because they think "it doesn't matter, good tippers tip, bad tippers don't, what I do won't change it" then they are just fulfilling their own prophecy. Which is a shame, because I would much, much rather tip well and receive good service.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I think that some of you who haven't waited tables are judging your servers too harshly. If your thirsty and want your fourth refill of water, but can't find the server, you call that bad service and dock the tip. Never mind that that server is refilling 3 cokes and two shirley temples at another table, getting a bear and margarita from the bar for yet another table, checking to see if your food and every other meal is ready to run, seating a table and checking out another table. Sure, that's not your fault, but that's not the server's fault either.
Your food came out cold? That sucks, dock tip, right? It doesn't matter that your food came up right after the food for a 10 top that the server has to run. Ooops, then there was something wrong with one or more of those meals, and they need refills, and lemons, oh and maybe a couple more napki- doh! One of them knocked over a drink! This could take a while. But they do finally bring your food out, which makes something the other tables are waiting for late, which makes them tip less. But, again, not your fault, but not the server's either. But your still gonna tip 10% percent because you didn't get your refill and your food was cold. It's ok, the other table is only gonna tip 7% because the server took so long to help them.
Again, I realize you should not be punished for this, but does that mean the server should? They are working they're collective buts off to do the best they can, but they still get screwed. Obviously, not every server is a good one, and some just don't care, but that is not, by far, the majority. Most servers do care, and try to do a good job, and don't deserve to make less money because the restaurant was busy that night and one of the servers called in sick, so they have to take more tables than they can handle.
And the kinds of things I'm talking about are absolutely NOT abnormal. This is the kind of thing a server deals with every single night. Just because your dining experience wasn't perfect, or wasn't even up to par, does not mean that the server is not working hard, or hasn't earned the tip they should recieve.
Edit: And for those who say that the burden of compensating the servers should not be on the customer, but on the employer, I completely agree. Restaurants should have to pay their servers more, so that you don't have to. It would be great if in a semi-fine dining restaurant a server makes a blanket $12 and hour, and you can tip a couple bucks if you want. That would be ideal. But, unfortunately, that isn't the way it works. I can't change that, you can't change that by not tipping, the server certainly can't change it, so it really doesn't matter.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If the restaurants can decide to charge everyone a mandatory tip, then they can decide to do away with tipping and pay a fair wage.
Some say it would eat the profits of the restaurant. With tipping, it is forcing the employees to take on the risk of no customers instead of the owner of the establishment. Tipping doesn't eliminate risk but instead puts it on the employees.
The reason this is sustainable at all is because sometimes the risk pays off in a big way. WIth no tipping, no wait staff would come home with $600 in cash from a night.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:If your thirsty and want your fourth refill of water, but can't find the server, you call that bad service and dock the tip.
When I am paying $2.20 for 50 cents worth of Dr Pepper, it's because I expect to actually receive it. When I tell the server ahead of time "I drink a lot of soda, so you might want to bring more than one and save yourself some time" and they not only don't do it but don't even check back, yeah, that's a problem. When I *tell* them, and they don't come back, and I'm left unable to eat another bite of my meal for 5 full minutes because I can't even *see* my server, that's a problem. If they have too much else to do, maybe that's not their fault but it sure isn't mine. Fact is I'm not getting what I paid for.
quote:Your food came out cold? That sucks, dock tip, right?
Why would I dock tip for that? Do I expect the server to stick their finger in my food and check the temperature? I suppose the server could have just left it sitting there for 10 minutes so it got cold, but I wouldn't assume that. I'd send it back, but if the server was friendly and no surly, I certainly wouldn't dock tip.
quote:Again, I realize you should not be punished for this, but does that mean the server should?
If I am led to expect a level of service and don't get it, I can either tip less or talk to the manager. If it's the server's fault, I tip less. If I'm wrong, they can try talking to the manager themselves: "we're getting low tips because you're overworking us! Hire another server!"
The vast majority of the time the *only* problems I have at restaurants are inattentive or surly waitstaff. So yeah, my protest is in the form of the tip.
quote:They are working they're collective buts off to do the best they can
No, they are *not*. I don't dock tip for people working to do the best they can. I dock tip for those who could do better but don't make the effort.
quote:I think that some of you who haven't waited tables are judging your servers too harshly.
I think you're projecting your preconceived notions onto me. I'd say straw man fallacy but it clearly wasn't intentional.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:And for those who say that the burden of compensating the servers should not be on the customer, but on the employer, I completely agree. Restaurants should have to pay their servers more, so that you don't have to. It would be great if in a semi-fine dining restaurant a server makes a blanket $12 and hour, and you can tip a couple bucks if you want. That would be ideal. But, unfortunately, that isn't the way it works. I can't change that, you can't change that by not tipping, the server certainly can't change it, so it really doesn't matter.
Hear hear. Very well said, and I'm in complete agreement.
I do like my tip meter, though. To respond to zgator's "drop it right at the end" it would have a lockout that you can only change it by a single percentage point every five minutes. So, you can't bump it up 5% immediately (even though you can always tip on top of the counter), but you can't drop it 5% without doing it five times over 25 minutes.
So, for a forty minute meal, the lowest a person could conceivably tip their waiter would be 10% - if they timed it so they dropped it a percent every 5 minutes. And then, the waiter would know after the first 15-20 min that this customer isn't planning on tipping even the standard rate, and could focus their attentions on other tables.
It would be great, too, because the tip could be more reactive. Say the person had a great personality and made you all laugh as you sat down - up 1%. Say the waiter came back with an incorrectly entered order after a long wait - down 1% (or 2%, depending on how long the wait was). Say the waiter then was absent for five minutes while someone was waiting for a refill of their drink - down 1%. Maybe then the waiter brought the manager over to apologize for the incorrect order and to offer the table a free dessert - up 1%.
As positive or negative things happened that were server-based, the customer could adjust the tip amount. And even better, the server can respond to lower tip indicators (bringing the manager over).
[Edit: Also, tables with lower tips shown can draw the attention of managers, who can approach the table and ask why they weren't happy - possibly fixing the problem, but also letting them know which servers consistently aren't performing well]
The more I think about that system, the more I like it.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
There are some things that are the server's fault, and other things that aren't. For instance:
- Server has too many tables: Host's fault - Food comes out incorrectly: possibly server, possibly kitchen. - Server disappears for a time: possibly server, possibly management. - Not checking back after specific request: server's fault (also possibly host's fault or no one's fault if the restaurant is jam packed) - Drink made incorrectly/badly/weak: Bartender's fault. - Food cold: possibly server, kitchen, or expediter's fault - Dirty glass/silverware: dishwasher's fault. - Table not clean when you're seated: mostly busboy's fault, part host's fault. - Rudeness: totally server's fault.
I know most people take all of this into account - meaning whether or not their unahppy experience was the server's fault or not - but a good portion of people dock the server's tip for all things that go wrong in their night. That's not fair, and I think that's what vonk was getting at.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
The thing that gets me is that I go to a lot of effort to try to tip servers above average for only average service, but then if I try to dock tip for poor service that is only the server's fault, people will PREJUDGE and assume I must be a cheapskate or unjust.
So I don't labor under the illusion that my tipping choice will even influence the server to do better in the future. It might, but I figure it most likely won't. They'll assume I'm the bad guy instead of them.
But at least I'll save some money.
But I'd rather spend it and have a better experience.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: There are some things that are the server's fault, and other things that aren't. For instance:
- Server has too many tables: Host's fault - Food comes out incorrectly: possibly server, possibly kitchen. - Server disappears for a time: possibly server, possibly management. - Not checking back after specific request: server's fault (also possibly host's fault or no one's fault if the restaurant is jam packed) - Drink made incorrectly/badly/weak: Bartender's fault. - Food cold: possibly server, kitchen, or expediter's fault - Dirty glass/silverware: dishwasher's fault. - Table not clean when you're seated: mostly busboy's fault, part host's fault. - Rudeness: totally server's fault.
I know most people take all of this into account - meaning whether or not their unahppy experience was the server's fault or not - but a good portion of people dock the server's tip for all things that go wrong in their night. That's not fair, and I think that's what vonk was getting at.
The problem is that regardless of whose fault those problems are, they're ultimately the server's responsibility. It's unfortunate, but that's the way the system is built. You'll get informed/empathetic people who will understand that many problems are not the waiter's fault, but by and large people are going to logically associate blame with the person whose job it is to visibly interact with the customers. Anyone who's worked in a call center can relate to being blamed for problems you have ZERO control over.
That's just part of the job.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's the risk. Servers take on the risk of all that happening. In return for the risk is the chance for higher compensation. Restaurant owners pass on the risk of employement to the servers. In return for passing on that risk, they can/do charge less and therefore take in less money. If tipping were eliminated, restaurants would not charge 20% more. They would charge 30% more because they'll have to pay servers whether or not customers come in. These increased prices would reflect the reallocation of risk.
In a restaurant, every empty table and every table for four filled with two lingerers costs opportunity. The servers pay that - they earn that much less than they could have otherwise.
I'm not troubled by tipping rates going up - my salary is higher now than the same job earned 15 years ago too, and food prices have not gone up nearly as fast. If I'm troubled by anything, it's by the practice of restaurants passing on the risk and opportunity cost of restaurant ownership to their employees.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Good post, kat.
Eros,
quote:The problem is that regardless of whose fault those problems are, they're ultimately the server's responsibility.
Not really. It's the responsibility of the bartender to make the right drink, and the busboy to clear the tables. The server faces the *consequences* of any errors, but those errors may or may not be their responsibility.
A server will take a lower tip because the patron is in a bad mood and got caught out in the rain... suffering the consequences of something that was totally not their responsibility.
My post was meant to illustrate that a great number of factors can affect service - even for the best server - and the server is not always responsible for the mistake. A server won't know if the order they put into the bar for a Stoli Cosmo actually gets Stoli instead of some other vodka - but the customer likely will.
If a customer complains, a good server will track down the problem, reorder the drink, and possibly have the manager comp it so the customer doesn't have to pay. That's deserving of extra tip, but the drink mistake is not deserving of lower tip, imho. The server took repsonsibility for *fixing* a problem they were not ultimately responsible for creating, which is to their credit.
I understand that the server takes grief for things out of his or her control (as do call center people) - but wouldn't it be a better world if people were educated as to what is and is not the fault of the server (or call center operator)? Those people take the heat due to the ignorance of the consumer regarding the complexities of a given situation - perhaps education about those complexities would lessen that heat.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:That's just part of the job.
No, it's not. Serving the customer, completing sidework and obeying company policy are parts of the job. Being the recipient of complaints, whether well founded or not, is not part of the servers job. That is part of the managers job. If you have a complaint about any part of your dining experience, you tell the manager. They will apologize profusely, probably offer a discount or comp item and promptly forget all about you. They can explain to you the reasons behind what went wrogn. They can tell you if it's the hostess to blame, or the capacity or the restaurant, or a server called in sick. Or they can say that your right, that is not how they do business and you can be confirmed that it was, in fact your server doing lousy job. If that is the case, then by all means, you have every right to tip less. But there is no way to know this without talking to the manager. It is their job to explain it to you. So, no, it isn't part of the servers job at all to recieve criticism or punishment based on an initial complaint.
And for those that say that talking to a manager will result in the server losing their job: I would hate to work there, and have never heard of anyone who does. It usually takes many complaints over a long period of time to lose a job waiting tables. There are many steps to the disciplining process, including extra sidework, bad shifts, bad sections, stern talking to's, and docked shifts. All of these are effective ways of increasing the performance of a server. But there is no way the server will get any better if you don't tell the manager about your problems.
So, in conclusion, I would suggest talking to the manager when you have a problem with your meal in order to find out why that problem happened, so you can make decisions regarding tip and your chances of return business.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Not really. It's the responsibility of the bartender to make the right drink, and the busboy to clear the tables. The server faces the *consequences* of any errors, but those errors may or may not be their responsibility.
All responsibility IS is accepting the consequences, ne?
quote:I understand that the server takes grief for things out of his or her control (as do call center people) - but wouldn't it be a better world if people were educated as to what is and is not the fault of the server (or call center operator)?
Sure. But it's not the case now - and I don't have enough faith in people to hope that it ever will be.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk:
quote:That's just part of the job.
No, it's not.
This is why I hate the entire system of tipping -- there's an "understood" agreement, but because it's just understood, it's very easy for the two parties to not agree on what the agreement is.
Tell me how much it costs for me to eat your food in your restaurant, and let me choose to purchase it or not.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by vonk:
quote:That's just part of the job.
No, it's not.
This is why I hate the entire system of tipping -- there's an "understood" agreement, but because it's just understood, it's very easy for the two parties to not agree on what the agreement is.
Tell me how much it costs for me to eat your food in your restaurant, and let me choose to purchase it or not.
Dinner for two at Pie In the Sky Diner?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:No, it's not. Serving the customer, completing sidework and obeying company policy are parts of the job. Being the recipient of complaints, whether well founded or not, is not part of the servers job.
Yes. Yes, it is. As the primary liason between customer and everyone else in the restaurant, it is the waiter's responsibility to bear the brunt of complaints. It is the waiter's responsibility to bring a manager into the situation, not the customer's. Your ONLY JOB is to be a liason between customer and restaurant. That job is extensive, and includes a whoooole lotta things, but that's what it comes down to.
Shrugging off this responsibility doesn't make it any less yours, since you will continue to suffer the consequences as though it were.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Not by any definition of the word responsible found on dictionary.com, eros.
Sure, someone can be *held* responsible for something that is not their responsibility. For instance, one can say that the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world. One can even take action based on that perceived responsibility.
That doesn't, however, make the the Jews ultimately responsible for all the wars in the world (much to Mel Gibson's chagrin).
You can *say* that the server is ultimately responsible for all ills that befall you whilst in a restaurant, but that does not make it so. You can, however, take action based on that incorrect perception of responsibility, forcing the server to suffer consequences for something they had no hand in causing (aka, were not responsbile for).
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:No, it's not. Serving the customer, completing sidework and obeying company policy are parts of the job. Being the recipient of complaints, whether well founded or not, is not part of the servers job.
Yes. Yes, it is. As the primary liason between customer and everyone else in the restaurant, it is the waiter's responsibility to bear the brunt of complaints. It is the waiter's responsibility to bring a manager into the situation, not the customer's. Your ONLY JOB is to be a liason between customer and restaurant. That job is extensive, and includes a whoooole lotta things, but that's what it comes down to.
Shrugging off this responsibility doesn't make it any less yours, since you will continue to suffer the consequences as though it were.
Well I guess we just disagree then. IMO, one should ask the server to get the manager if there is a problem. You suggest the customer should just complain directly to the server. I have an idea which will get a better response, but you are obviously welcome to behave however you like.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Sure, someone can be *held* responsible for something that is not their responsibility. For instance, one can say that the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world. One can even take action based on that perceived responsibility.
The analogy is invalid, as the Jews will not be the direct sufferers of the consequences of all the wars in the world, regardless of how many people point fingers there.
As mentioned, repeatedly, by those in this thread with waiting experience, the waiters suffer for things that are not their fault. Hence, the responsibility is theirs. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't see how you can be responsible for something you cannot control. That's blame, not responsibility.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Well I guess we just disagree then. IMO, one should ask the server to get the manager if there is a problem. You suggest the customer should just complain directly to the server. I have an idea which will get a better response, but you are obviously welcome to behave however you like.
This isn't about what works, it's about what happens, dude.
The waiter isn't SUPPOSED to be responsible. But as long as customers continue holding them responsible (my prediction: forever), what good does it do to pretend the responsibility falls elsewhere?
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:the waiters suffer for things that are not their fault. Hence, the responsibility is theirs.
I don't get how this follows. They suffer, so it's their fault?
Edit to add:
quote:The waiter isn't SUPPOSED to be responsible. But as long as customers continue holding them responsible (my prediction: forever), what good does it do to pretend the responsibility falls elsewhere?
My bad, dude. I thought we were talking about the way that restaurants should/are supposed to work. Not about the best way to conform with the general public that is horribly uninformed about the workings of a the service industry.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I don't see how you can be responsible for something you cannot control. That's blame, not responsibility.
Dictionary.com:
BLAME 1. to hold responsible 2. to place the responsibility for (a fault, error, etc.)
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Oy.
quote:The analogy is invalid, as the Jews will not be the direct sufferers of the consequences of all the wars in the world, regardless of how many people point fingers there.
Sure they'll be sufferers of that misperception. Pardon, my sarcastic tone, but it's called antisemitism - and it's had some pretty nasty consequences.
What you are describing is not responsibility, but scapegoating. You're using the server as a scapegoat for all the ills you experience - regardless of their hand in the matter. It's like blowing up the toll booth operator's car because the government raised tolls. It's not his fault, but you're holding him unfairly responsible.
Does his suffering the consequence of you blowing up his car make him responsible for the government's toll increase? Does a waiter suffering the consequences of you giving a low tip make him responsible for the bartender using Smirnoff instead of Stoli?
You are having a hard time separating the idea of someone being "responsible" and someone suffering "consequences". They are different. To make someone bear the consequences for something they were not responsible for is making them a scapegoat.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk:
quote:the waiters suffer for things that are not their fault. Hence, the responsibility is theirs.
I don't get how this follows. They suffer, so it's their fault?
Responsibility and fault often have absolutely nothing to do with each other. This is one of those situations.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Again, oy.
There's a difference between holding someone responsible and their being responsible. And you can place the responsbility (blame) whoever you want, but that doesn't make them responsible, i.e. you can blame a race/culture/religion for everything wrong in the country/world without them truly being responsible.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:There's a difference between holding someone responsible and their being responsible. And you can place the responsbility (blame) whoever you want, but that doesn't make them responsible, i.e. you can blame a race/culture/religion for everything wrong in the country/world without them truly being responsible.
Absolutely.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:In reality, the point of a tip is to pay for your service as a separate expense from your food.
Yes, but the point of separating those expenses is so that the customer can pay more or less for better or worse service. Otherwise, it makes no sense, from a customer's or a server's standpoint, to separate the true.
If payment for the meal and payment for the service are separate, but the customer has no choice in either, then we can only assume that it is an attempt by the restaurant to trick customers into thinking an expensive meal is less expensive, by hiding a chunk of the cost from the menu. I don't think that is very ethical of the restaurant, if it means the server might not get tipped enough, or if it means the customer might end up being expected to pay more than he originally thought.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Even if the server is responsible, it isn't up to the customer to hold them responsible. The manager is and should be held responsible for absolutely anything that goes wrong with your meal. They manage the restaurant. If the server is to blame, the manager will hold them responsible, and take care of making sure they do a better job next time. This is not your job. Complaining to the server or holding him/her responsible for anything is almost always a waste of everyone's time.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:the point of separating those expenses is so that the customer can pay more or less for better or worse service.
I think the point of separating the two is the spread the risk of labor costs incurring when no customers are coming around among the many servers instead of all on the restaurant owner.
The part about more or less for better or worse service is how that concept is sold to the public. If that was the real reason, it would be failing miserably and tipping would go away.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:What you are describing is not responsibility, but scapegoating. You're using the server as a scapegoat for all the ills you experience - regardless of their hand in the matter. It's like blowing up the toll booth operator's car because the government raised tolls. It's not his fault, but you're holding him unfairly responsible.
Since when does responsibility and assigning it have anything to do with fairness? See my above quoted definition of "Blame."
quote:Does a waiter suffering the consequences of you giving a low tip make him responsible for the bartender using Smirnoff instead of Stoli?
Absolut-ly. (I couldn't. Resist.)
quote:You are having a hard time separating the idea of someone being "responsible" and someone suffering "consequences". They are different. To make someone bear the consequences for something they were not responsible for is making them a scapegoat.
Scapegoats are still ultimately responsible. They're suffering the consequences, how could they not be?
quote:Sure they'll be sufferers of that misperception. Pardon, my sarcastic tone, but it's called antisemitism - and it's had some pretty nasty consequences.
...what?
Err, no. Anti-semitism is not the participants in all the wars of the world holding the jews responsible for those wars.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Perhaps it is the manager who should rely on the tip then, and the server who should get a fixed salary.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:There's a difference between holding someone responsible and their being responsible. And you can place the responsbility (blame) whoever you want, but that doesn't make them responsible, i.e. you can blame a race/culture/religion for everything wrong in the country/world without them truly being responsible.
Given that the consequences for those held responsible are identical regardless of whether they're at fault or not, how are the two any different?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Scapegoats are still ultimately responsible. They're suffering the consequences, how could they not be?
No they aren't.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Perhaps it is the manager who should rely on the tip then, and the server who should get a fixed salary.
Great. Except there's one manager and many servers, so when everything goes south, one person is made to bear what many were made to bear before. That makes the job of manager much more risky than the job of any single server.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Yes, but the point of separating those expenses is so that the customer can pay more or less for better or worse service.
The trick here is not that customers can pay more or less, but that they can pay nothing.
They can, essentially, jump out of a cab without paying because they didn't like the driver's hat. The cabbie did the work, put their bags in the trunk, drove where they wanted, and obeyed all traffic laws - shouldn't he be guaranteed some compensation for his service? Of course, and he is.
Servers are guaranteed no such compensation under the current system.
With the tip meter I described, there would be the option to pay more or less, while still guaranteeing the services rendered were paid for.
quote:I don't think that is very ethical of the restaurant.
I would be in full support of restaurants having to pay a fair wage, with tips being "extra". As it is, most restaurants don't offer anything above the barest minimum allowable by law, expecting tips to pay their waitstaff's rent and bills.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Given that the consequences for those held responsible are identical regardless of whether they're at fault or not, how are the two any different?
So, hypothetically (I'm really just trying to understand), say a person is shot and killed in a robbery. The police arrest the wrong guy. Getting arrested is the same consequence the guilty party would recieve. Therefore the wrongly arrested guy is responsible for the shooting?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Scapegoats are still ultimately responsible. They're suffering the consequences, how could they not be?
No they aren't.
Err...yes, yes they are.
If I have a job to do at work and I point to someone else and say "hey you, YOU do it" and write it off, I'm still responsible because the person requisitioning the job will be looking to ME for the results.
If a waiter has an order at work and they pass it off the cook and notate "no onions," the waiter is still responsible because the person who ordered will be looking to HIM for the results.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk:
quote:Given that the consequences for those held responsible are identical regardless of whether they're at fault or not, how are the two any different?
So, hypothetically (I'm really just trying to understand), say a person is shot and killed in a robbery. The police arrest the wrong guy. Getting arrested is the same consequence the guilty party would recieve. Therefore the wrongly arrested guy is responsible for the shooting?
Yep.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Wow, remind me not to select you for my jury.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: Wow, remind me not to select you for my jury.
The deliberate misunderstanding implied here doesn't surprise me.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The words responsibility and blame are not interchangable thing in most people's lexicon, erso.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
eros, you seem to be using a definition of the word "responsible" that is nonstandard.
Being responsible for an act speaks to causing the act.
Say there's a guy up on a mountain who sets off some dynamite that causes a landslide. The town below is crushed.
The guy on the mountain suffers no consequences of the landslide. The town suffers all consequences of the landslide.
Who is responsible for the landslide? The person who caused it, or the people who suffered the consequences?
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Originally posted by vonk: Wow, remind me not to select you for my jury.
The deliberate misunderstanding implied here doesn't surprise me.
Trust me, my many misunderstandings are rarely deliberate.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: The words responsibility and blame are not interchangable thing in most people's lexicon, erso.
As they should be, since blame is used almost exclusively for responsibility for negative consequences, while credit is used almost exclusively for responsibility for positive consequences.
That doesn't make the central idea of responsibility implied in blame or credit any different.
Edit: mistyped a negative!
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
eros, scroll back.
Who's responsible for the landslide in that example?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote: Being responsible for an act speaks to causing the act.
No, being responsible for an act speaks to being held accountable for the act.
Again, dictionary.com
RESPONSIBLE 1. answerable or accountable, as for something within one's power, control, or management (often fol. by to or for): He is responsible to the president for his decisions. 2. involving accountability or responsibility: a responsible position.
The THIRD definition addresses causality:
3. chargeable with being the author, cause, or occasion of something (usually fol. by for): Termites were responsible for the damage.
The remainder of the definitions address accountability, again:
4. having a capacity for moral decisions and therefore accountable; capable of rational thought or action: The defendant is not responsible for his actions. 5. able to discharge obligations or pay debts. 6. reliable or dependable, as in meeting debts, conducting business dealings, etc. 7. (of a government, member of a government, government agency, or the like) answerable to or serving at the discretion of an elected legislature or the electorate.
I'm not the one using a nonstandard definition, FC.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:No, being responsible for an act speaks to being held accountable for the act.
That is being held responsible, being responsible.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
The first definition addresses causality.
Or do you not understand what "for something within one's power, control, or management" means?
Again, who's responsible for the landslide mentioned above?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote: Who is responsible for the landslide? The person who caused it, or the people who suffered the consequences?
I misspoke; the who is held accountable is the one who is responsible.
Hence, waiters are responsible for things that go wrong with an order. The man with the dynamite is, if caught, responsible for the town-crushing.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:No, being responsible for an act speaks to being held accountable for the act.
That is being held responsible, being responsible.
Again, the two are synonymous, since the consequences are identical.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: The first definition addresses causality.
Or do you not understand what "for something within one's power, control, or management" means?
Again, who's responsible for the landslide mentioned above?
It offers causality as an option, hence the word "as" preceding the quoted portion.
Accoutability remains the heart of the issue.
Edit: I need to get back to work, so if I don't respond for the next several hours, it's not me ignoring any of you. Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
So, those who suffer consequences of an act are not automatically responsible for it?
You said"
quote:the waiters suffer for things that are not their fault. Hence, the responsibility is theirs.
So, replace waiters with "townspeople" - how is it any different? The town suffered for something that was not its fault. Hence, the responsibility is the town's?
mph has the right of it - big difference between *being* responsible for something and being *held* responsible (aka, blamed) for something.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: So, those who suffer consequences of an act are not automatically responsible for it?
You said"
quote:the waiters suffer for things that are not their fault. Hence, the responsibility is theirs.
So, replace waiters with "townspeople" - how is it any different? The town suffered for something that was not its fault. Hence, the responsibility is the town's?
mph has the right of it - big difference between *being* responsible for something and being *held* responsible (aka, blamed) for something.
quote:I wrote: I misspoke; the who is held accountable is the one who is responsible.
In the case of the waiter, being held accountable means suffering the consequences, but for the sake of equating the analogy, the townspeople represent the diners.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
So, if I decided to burn your house down for forcing the Dodo to go extinct, that would make you responsible for that act?
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:No, being responsible for an act speaks to being held accountable for the act.
That is being held responsible, being responsible.
I also agree with this, and I believe it is were we are having problems.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: So, if I decided to burn your house down for forcing the Dodo to go extinct, that would make you responsible for that act?
Yes, exactly.
I think the problem is that some people here are viewing responsibility as some sort of absolute.
Ok, for real, getting back to work now. Back in a few hours.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:In the case of the waiter, being held accountable means suffering the consequences, but for the sake of equating the analogy, the townspeople represent the diners.
Who suffers from the mispoured drink? The diner will get a new drink made. The waiter gets a lower tip. The waiter suffers for the act of the bartender. In the analogy, the waiter is the town - suffering a consequence (getting crushed/low tip) because of an act (landslide/mispoured drink) caused by someone else (guy on mountain/bartender).
The person who caused the chain of events is responsible for it, not the person who is impacted most by the chain of events.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:No, being responsible for an act speaks to being held accountable for the act.
That is being held responsible, being responsible.
Again, the two are synonymous, since the consequences are identical.
A) That is not sufficient reason to say that they are synonymous B) The consequences are not identical. I will react very differently if I am blamed for something I did wrong than if I'm blamed for something someone else did wrong.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Yes, exactly.
Wow.
Eros, I'm going to put a before your name from now on as a consequence for being the cause of all that is wrong in the world.
It's amazing to think you're responsible for all that is wrong in the world.
Here I thought it was Tres. Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow:
quote:I understand that the waiter loses money, but I'm on a budget too.
Just wanted to respond to this, too, and I don't want this to sound like an attack, because it isn't.
This statement frustrates me to no end.
Far too many people who are "on a budget" go out to restaurants and shortchange their servers. It is not the server's fault that these people shouldn't be eating in a restaurant if they aren't prepared and able to compensate him for his service.
Let's pretend person on budget goes out to dinner with friends. They tip a "bad tip" of 15%. They ate at the restaurant for one hour. The 15% plus his $2.15 minimum wage represents more for that one hour than he and his friends make in an hour. Now, he might say well, I am on a budget so I tipped badly, but at heart his reason could be- I do not believe the waiter deserves more per hour than I do at my job. If his boss choices to pay him more, that is fine- but I am not paying him more out of my salary than I make.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
See, I'm not one to say 15% is a bad tip. It's adequate, and slightly below average in my area, but not "bad" by any stretch.
If you can go out and leave a 15% tip, that's perfectly fine.
What kills me is the people who go out and leave 8% tip, or worse no tip, and justify it by saying "I'm on a budget" - I've had friends of mine do this, or say this, and I've always tossed in enough money to bring it up to at least 15%.
Worse, I know someone who, if she's collecting the table's money, will pay *less* so that the tip isn't more than 15%. Say, for instance, there are 5 people splitting equally, and the bill is $100. Each person would throw in $20, plus tip. If she's collecting, and it comes to $97 not including her own contribution, she'll just put in the $18 for her share to make it $115 even.
Totally not cool - and an extreme example that is *not* in any way indicative of any sort of general behavior I've witnessed. But some people are just cheap by nature, I've found. (as an aside, since I witnessed that, I always grab the bill when out with her and tell everyone what they owe - in this case, it would have been $23 each).
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:I am not paying him more out of my salary than I make.
This is a pretty selfish statement for him to make - and if that's his attitude, I would hope he'd only ever eat at restaurants well within his means.
I mean, say he makes $15 per hour and he goes out to a fancy restaurant with his significant other for his anniversary - ordering drinks, and a bottle of champagne to celebrate. Let's say they eat for an hour, and the bill comes to $150. Does he only give $15 (10%)?
What if it was a double date and the tip came to $300, again, does he still only put in $15 (5%)?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:if that's his attitude, I would hope he'd only ever eat at restaurants well within his means.
I hope everybody only eats at restaurants well within their means.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I dunno. It's fun to put some money aside and go out for a night of way-beyond-my-means fun. I do that sometimes; don't go out for a couple of weekends so when I do go out I can spend three times as much and do some really fancy stuff.
This really doesn't have much relevance to the argument, though, so carry on. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If you've put the money aside and saved for it, then you've made that restaurant within your means.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
You're means. Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I usually tip 20% because I usually eat with a three year old who not infrequently makes a bit of a mess. I may tip less if the service is particularly poor.
I don't agree with a mandatory gratuity unless there's a large party, where in makes sense from both sides (the waiter or waitress doesn't get skimped for backbreaking work, and the party doesn't have to fiddle with calculations if the check is being split up in weird ways.)
Then again, it wouldn't break my heart to see restaurants just pay their staff a living wage. I visited some people in Germany a few years ago and tipping customs came up in conversation; the locals thought the American customs were insane.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
They dont' tip in Hong Kong either. Well the foreigners do, but the waiters/waitresses are not docked pay if they get tipped, its VERY hard to tip in Mainland China or Taiwan, accepting monetary gifts is a very touchy subject, but if you learn the nuances I've never had more fun tipping. Its so nice to tip when the waiter is genuinely convinced his good service is not worthy of such excess.
Patrons often yell at each other (good naturely) about how embarassed they are that somebody presumed to pay the bill without consulting them, arguements about who GETS to pay the bill prevail most of the time.
The Chinese are completely amazed when a crafty American excuses themselves to the bathroom and takes a waiter aside saying (before anyone has even ordered) "If you make sure <b>I</b> pay the bill, I will tip you VERY well"
The look of consternation when the waiter responds to bill requests, "Mr So and So has already paid." is priceless
I love arguing about being allowed to be generous much more than I like arguing about how much I am obligated to tip.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
About 12 years ago, when I was out with my friends, and the bill came, we pooled our money and ended up with way too much money.
These days, with a different group of friends, that are about 8 years younger on average than my previous group, the problem is making sure everyone pays enough.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow:
quote:I am not paying him more out of my salary than I make.
This is a pretty selfish statement for him to make - and if that's his attitude, I would hope he'd only ever eat at restaurants well within his means.
I mean, say he makes $15 per hour and he goes out to a fancy restaurant with his significant other for his anniversary - ordering drinks, and a bottle of champagne to celebrate. Let's say they eat for an hour, and the bill comes to $150. Does he only give $15 (10%)?
What if it was a double date and the tip came to $300, again, does he still only put in $15 (5%)?
Does that waiter deserve to make $45 an hour? And on the other side- does the waitress working at IHOP late shift with one or two tables really deserve to only make like $4 an hour? (And I have been to IHOP with friends were 15% would work out to be that little and the restaurant was completely empty- we ended up tipping like 50% then).
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Perhaps most of the people in this thread really do tip based on what their service was like, I don't know. I do know, based on my experience waiting tables, that the majority of the population does not do this. Good tippers almost always tip well, and a server has to be awful in order for them to tip less. Bad tippers always tip badly and pretty much never increase what they leave.
Frankly, people who live on a budget and can't afford to tip, shouldn't go to restaurants where they are expected to.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
If someone says they are on a budget and can only tip x amount, the waiter still has made x more than he would have had the person not come in.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Actually, the majority of people who can't afford to tip, don't.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Most of the people in this thread have been saying that they shouldn't be responsible for paying their server at a restaurant because that is the restaurant's responsibility. Let's try looking at it from another angle.
If you enter a restaurant where you will have a server, we can assume that you know that server lives on the tips that he or she makes waiting tables. As such, knowing that what you "pay" the server is essential to their ability to pay bills, rent etc. you are entering into a contract with the server that you will pay them for their services. If you go to a restaurant, eat a meal and then leave either no tip or a very small tip because you "cannot afford" to leave a better tip, then depending on the time of day, you may or may not have helped the server.
If you are eating at a time of day when the restaurant is relatively empty and the server probably wouldn't have had another table in your place, then yes, you have increased what the server would have made for the day if you weren't there. However, if you are eating at a time when there is a wait, and the server could have had another table in your place, one that might have paid or paid better, then you have taken money from the server's pocket.
If you really can't "afford" to tip, then you probably also can't "afford" to eat at a restaurant. I almost never ate out during the year when I waited tables. The few times I did, I went with my roommate who dragged me out with her by agreeing to pay because I couldn't afford to. Why didn't I go out? Because, I couldn't afford to tip the server at the restaurant where I would be eating and since that person lived (at least in part) on what I would be leaving for them it wasn't fair of me to take their time if I couldn't pay them for it.
Habitually poor tippers aren't going to get the best service either. Despite what most poor tippers think, servers do remember what you look like. Some servers will refuse to wait on habitually poor tippers. I know that, while I was never deliberately rude to a poor tipper and I never deliberatly screwed up a habitually poor tipper's order, I wasn't as attentive with a habitually poor tipper as I was with a customer that I knew would tip well, or with a customer that I had never served before. It's a cycle. If I know that you won't tip me, or won't tip me well even if I do my best for you, and another customer whom I have either never served before or whom I know to be a good tipper is sat at another table in my section, I am going to pay more attention to them than I will to you.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:As such, knowing that what you "pay" the server is essential to their ability to pay bills, rent etc. you are entering into a contract with the server that you will pay them for their services.
That's not remotely true. There's no implied contract for service; the server is not MY employee. If I hired someone to follow me from restaurant to restaurant and deliver food from kitchens to my table, THAT would be my responsibility. In the normal situation, though, the server is an employee of the restaurant, and I am not remotely obligated to him for anything.
My knowledge of the server's financial situation does not mean I'm obligated to tip; it merely means that I am made acutely aware that my tip is in fact charity that props up an exploitative situation.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
My point (which was specifically directed toward the "cannot afford to tip" argument in case I didn't make that clear) is that if you go into a restaurant knowing that the server lives on their tips, and also knowing before you sit down to eat that you are not going to tip the server you should not eat there.
If you do not agree with the current way that gratuity works then don't eat at restaurants where servers work on gratuity. If you had crummy service and choose not to tip for that reason, then that's fine, but don't go into a restaurant where tipping is how the servers get paid (and as my post on page 2 states, most servers get just enough in their paychecks to cover the taxes on their tips plus a meal at McDonalds) planning on not tipping your server. And if you don't tip simply because you don't believe in tipping, don't act shocked when you get bad service from servers at restaurants you frequent. No server is going to work their best for you if they know you aren't going to tip them. It's just a fact.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:No server is going to work their best for you if they know you aren't going to tip them.
Which is at least part of the reason that tipping is ill-suited to the modern service industry.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by vonk:
quote:That's just part of the job.
No, it's not.
This is why I hate the entire system of tipping -- there's an "understood" agreement, but because it's just understood, it's very easy for the two parties to not agree on what the agreement is.
Tell me how much it costs for me to eat your food in your restaurant, and let me choose to purchase it or not.
Come to Australia.
(I find the idea of tipping very alien, and this discussion fascinating.)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think tipping should be worked into higher education.
Take professor's salaries out of our tuition and allow us to tip professors according to how we think our class went. If it sucks, I'll tip them low, and it'll encourage them to teach better in the future. If the class was phenomenal, then I'll tip better, but probably not, since I'm a poor college student .
I think a 15% tip automatically added onto the bill, or built into the price of the food, is fair. Whatever you want to tip above that is your business, but other than raising the price of food by a fair percentage and funneling that money to server paychecks, I don't see how you solve the problem.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: The trick here is not that customers can pay more or less, but that they can pay nothing.
They can, essentially, jump out of a cab without paying because they didn't like the driver's hat. The cabbie did the work, put their bags in the trunk, drove where they wanted, and obeyed all traffic laws - shouldn't he be guaranteed some compensation for his service? Of course, and he is.
The problem with this analogy is that most cabbies, unless they are working for themselves, are in much the same position as servers -- a large chunk of their pay is the tip. (In this country, at least. In other countries, just as tipping waitstaff is unusual, so is tipping cabbies, In Israel, cabbies expect to give you back change -- even if it's a small amount. Here, the cabbies assume you're just tipping them, unless you ask for change.)
I think their base rate may be higher than a server's but even so, most of the fare does NOT go to the driver. So jumping out of the cab without paying anything is analogous to stiffing not only the server, but the restaurant.
I tip cabbies (with the notable exception of the horrifying one I have described elsewhere) -- in Israel as well as here. I tip waitstaff and other service providers too (manicurists, for example). As it happens, I was always taught that 15% is appropriate for reasonable service, and so I usually tip just over that. I would not like having an automatic 20% gratuity added to the bill -- for 20% I want above-average service. (And when I have gotten it, I have tipped accordingly.)
But just like Porter, I would prefer if tipping were eliminated, and the true price of the food were reflected on the menu and bill.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't go to restaurants all that often, and when I do, I like to make it a new experience. So, I rarely went to any restaurant often enough for my tipping habits to have an effect.
However, the place where I lived before here had a fantastic sushi restaurant that I'm still trying to replace. I would go about once every two weeks, and I noticed that they were happy to see me. It was such a weird experience.
However, I didn't like it. It wasn't a friendship - I don't want a relationship with my server. I don't want the obligations of it. I just want sushi. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I want the relationship. I like it when I have not only a favorite restaurant, but a favorite meal at that restaurant. Along with a favorite server.
I like ordering 'the usual'. It makes me feel safe and accepted.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It makes me feel obligated, exposed, and vulnerable.
I swear I don't think I have committment issues.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
*snort*
I find the familiarity comforting. Plus, people who know me like me better than people meeting me for the first time. And it's nice to be liked.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's true. Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:If someone says they are on a budget and can only tip x amount, the waiter still has made x more than he would have had the person not come in.
Only if the restaurant was dead, and the table would have been empty otherwise. If there was another party that could have sat at that table, the waiter has less than he would have made had the person not come in.
quote:I think their base rate may be higher than a server's but even so, most of the fare does NOT go to the driver. So jumping out of the cab without paying anything is analogous to stiffing not only the server, but the restaurant.
I lived with a cabbie in Atlanta. He had to turn over an amount of money based on his recorded trips and mileage at the end of the night. A good chunk of his money was tips, a small chunk of his money were trips he made off the books, and a smaller part of his money was his wage.
(Granted, he owned his own cab and worked as an affiliate to a company - I'm sure cabbies who rent cab time have a harder time making ends meet.)
Servers don't get that second (albeit unethical) option, of course. Though people who skip out on tabs (or cabs) have the cost of that service come out of their server's (or cabbie's) pocket, more often than not.
quote:Come to Australia.
(I find the idea of tipping very alien, and this discussion fascinating.)
This was the same in Ireland (and to a large extent, England and Scotland) - there was no tipping culture. Servers and bartenders got paid a standard wage, and you paid the price of the food/drink and that was that. Some american's tipped, but they got funny looks when they did. The most an Irish person would leave would be whatever small coins they didn't want to stuff into their pockets.
It was the reason I took office work instead of bar work when I worked over there. I knew I couldn't both live and travel on a bar/server salary - whereas I could (barely) working as a bartender at home (but not really as a server).
quote:My knowledge of the server's financial situation does not mean I'm obligated to tip; it merely means that I am made acutely aware that my tip is in fact charity that props up an exploitative situation.
This attitude is part of the reason I gave up bartending/serving. Customers that think that tipping is some sort of charity, and that they're doing the server a favor. That the tip is bonus above and beyond their standard salary, and that servers need to go above and beyond for any tip at all.
Tipping is a server's salary (or at least 85% of it) and not any sort of charity or bonus - even at standard/expected tips of 15%, a server is likely only doing slightly better than minimum wage. While tipping is not a requirement by law, to give no tip (or to tip 10% or less) is either incredibly ignorant or incredibly selfish, and those that habitually do so should simply stop patronizing restaurants that use servers.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:It makes me feel obligated, exposed, and vulnerable.
I swear I don't think I have committment issues.
Kat, did you read the threads on Asperger's last year? Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:I find the familiarity comforting. Plus, people who know me like me better than people meeting me for the first time. And it's nice to be liked.
I enjoy both situations--there are nice things about having a restaurant where the cook starts putting together a meal for you when she sees you, and then comes over to chat for a bit while you're eating, and the server brings you tea in a chipped mug that doesn't match the ones they serve to ordinary customers, but is better insulated and holds about five times as much liquid.
There are also nice things about being a stranger and being left alone.
Which one I seek out depends on my mood at the time.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hmm...in restaurants, I always prefer to be left alone. If I'm by myself, then I'm thinking or reading, and if I'm with someone, I want to talk to them. I go to restaurants because I can't make sushi at home and I like being served, but I don't want to sociable when I'm thinking about something else.
I'm friendly, I swear. I make friends somewhat easily and I really like people. I like being social. It's like I'm either ready for it or I'm not, though, and if I am, I don't generally seek friends for whom I'm responsible for paying a salary. It makes me kind of uncomfortable.
Thank heavens I don't have a life where I have a nanny or gardeners or a housekeeper. To avoid being a terrible boss I'd probably have to adjust the above mindset.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That's the thing: I don't want to associate with people I'm paying to do things for me. If they're providing me an essential paid service, they are by definition not my friends.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I don't know if that's "by definition" - but I can understand keeping a certain difference between friends and people you are paying.
I think I can be friends with developers I freelance for. And by the same token, I feel that I can ask friends to freelance write for products I am developing.
I have gone to restaurants where friends have waited tables or tended bar, and I have had friends come to restaurants I've worked at.
I don't think friendship and payment for service is mutually exclusive.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I have had friends as my servers before, but they were my friends first. And, to be honest, it was a little awkward for me. When I was a leader for the Young Women one of our girls was a waitress at a local restaurant, and we always left a humongous tip - 50% or more. She was saving for college!
That wasn't quite a friendship, though - I was the adult. It wasn't give and take like a real friendship is, and I think introducing money into that give and take makes things sticky.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Tipping is only starting to become standard in the higher priced restaurants and hotels here. Unfortunately, for some places, the gratuity is written into the bill.
I say unfortunately because it's an unknown for anyone new to the restaurant or who hasn't eaten there in a while. It's not mentioned upfront. I also say unfortunately because service here almost universally sucks. The best service here is on par with among the worst service I've received in Canada. Complaints on anything are met with scorn and hostility, never with change or adjusted bills or better food or better service.
I'm appalled at the level of service I've received here. Had it been Canada, I probably would have done a LOT of yelling - it was that bad. But here, it only makes matters worse.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I have, and have had for the last few years, good friends who are bartenders. Typically, I tip more or less than my normal amount depending on what courtesies they extend me because of our friendship. In other words, if they hook me up with free drinks, I leave a large tip (like, on the order of the price of the drinks). If they give me no special treatment, then I tip them as I would a regular bartender (which is pretty good).
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
See, quid, that's why I think all tipping customs/policies/expecatations should be written and available at all tables in the restaurant - or at worst, on each menu.
If a restaurant is just a standard, run of the mill one, there should be a disclaimer saying:
"Minimum wage for a server in this state is XXX. Your server's salary is XXX. Servers in this establishment rely on tips as their primary income, so please take this into consideration. It is customary to leave at least 15% gratuity, and 18% gratuity may be added for parties of 6 or more."
If a restaurant wants to go above and beyond, they could change the numbers involved, or add other "tip education" pointers.
I think I would support legislation that required restaurants to publish the wage they pay their servers. Maybe it would force them to start paying something closer to a fair wage if people kept reading that their servers were paid $2.18 or $2.30 per hour.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Here, well, everyone's paid crap wages, but restaurants that pad gratuity onto the bill pay the servers the same wage they normally would with or without tips. I'm not actually convinced that in those cases the tip would even go to the server. But things here are seriously messed up anyway.
Personally, I'm all for restaurants paying ALL their staff a living wage and hike up the bills accordingly, leaving tips to be rewards for good service, but not expected or demanded.
In Canada, servers have the same minimum wage rate apply to them as it does to every single other industry. Tips are a bonus. That makes more sense to me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:In other words, if they hook me up with free drinks, I leave a large tip (like, on the order of the price of the drinks).
Those aren't free drinks. They're drinks for which the bartender pockets the entire profit.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
They're drinks that I don't pay for, hence 'free'. There is no profit on free drinks, so the bartender can't pocket it.
Buybacks are common at most bars, especially for regulars and big tippers/spenders. This is just like that, except the bartender substitutes personal knowledge of me for time invested sitting at the bar, because he knows I'll give that money back both to him and to the bar.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:They're drinks that I don't pay for, hence 'free'.
But you ARE paying for them, if you're tipping the price of the drinks.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:In other words, if they hook me up with free drinks, I leave a large tip (like, on the order of the price of the drinks).
Those aren't free drinks. They're drinks for which the bartender pockets the entire profit.
That is kind of true. When I give/have gotten free drinks it is understood that it's not being rung up, but payment is still expected in the tip. Even with a table that doesn't know the server, if you get something for free, you should agknowledge that in the tip.
quote:My knowledge of the server's financial situation does not mean I'm obligated to tip; it merely means that I am made acutely aware that my tip is in fact charity that props up an exploitative situation.
This kind of attitude is frustrating to no end. It is not, in any way, charity. These are not destitute people with their hands out. They have a job, a job that includes tips as a large majority of the income. They are working for you and restaurant to earn money. To equate servers with the guy on the corner washing your windsheild for quarters is, frankly, very insulting.
Also, I love being a regular at a restaurant or bar. Knowing the people that work there and being friends with them is great. It's like Cheers. I have no problems being friends with people that I'm paying. I also have no problems being friends with people that pay me. I don't think there should be a social barrier between people, just because they are serving you. It's not like they are "the help" and not to be fraternized with. They're people too, often nice people, and it can be viewed as very rude if a person is curt with a person that has served them once every two weeks for the past year. That's just me though.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:But you ARE paying for them, if you're tipping the price of the drinks.
Yes, but the difference is I'm not obligated to. I do it because I'm a nice guy. If I didn't do, that wouldn't substantially change the quantity of free drinks that I got.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:I do it because I'm a nice guy.
This I like. This is the best reason to tip well, regardless of the service. Why should you tip well? Because it's the nice thing to do. If the server did something that makes you not want to be nice to them, well, ok. But I like people being nice to me, and I find that when I'm nice, people are nice back. It perpetuates a healthy cycle.
It may not be the biggest reason (because servers need the money to live and that is their job so you should pay them), but I believe it is the best. Most of you are nice people and I assume that you tip well most of the time based on that. If you don't tip well, I'm not saying you're being mean, just not really nice. And I like nice people. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:This kind of attitude is frustrating to no end. It is not, in any way, charity.
Sure, it is, especially if you're going to require it.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Huh? How is it charity if it's required? Are you being sarcastic and I'm just dense? Dictionary.com only talks about "something given" and "generous acts" for "people in need" and the "poor, ill or helpless."
Paying tips doesn't fall under any of these, as far as I can tell. I suppose it would be charitable if you tipped far more than is customary or necessary.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's NEVER "necessary" to tip.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:It's NEVER "necessary" to tip.
To answer this, I quote myself from above:
quote:While tipping is not a requirement by law, to give no tip (or to tip 10% or less) is either incredibly ignorant or incredibly selfish, and those that habitually do so should simply stop patronizing restaurants that use servers.
No, it's not necessary to tip, but if you don't (and have any understanding of the system), you're a selfish freeloader.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
This thread affected my lunch time.
I haven't been to a salon in ages due to lack of time and money, but my (subtle, but present) roots were almost two inches long, so I decided to go to the salon on Pennsylvania avenue near the Library. I had my lunch hour, and I thought it would take maybe slightly longer than that - about an hour and a half, tops.
Oh my stars, but the time we hit an hour and a half he had barely finished putting the foil in my hair. I watched in envy as the stylist across the salon managed to cycle two customers with highlights through while he was still doing mine. Also, I don't think the highlights were dramatic enough - they aren't really what I wanted.
At about the hour and forty-five minute mark he asked me if my work was flexible. "Not really." AAAA!!!
Two hours and fifteen minutes later, I'm paying the check and debating the tip amount. On the one hand, holy crap. On the other, a crappy tip would mean that the two+ hours he spent with me would be worth even less. It's awkward at work and I need to stay later, but my pay isn't affected. So, this thread had an influence. Whether or not it was an influence for good depends, I suppose, on whether you view tips as incentives or transfers of labor costs.
I can tell you, though, that I'm not going back. I viewed him giving me his card at the end as an adorably quixotic act.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Paying tips doesn't fall under any of these, as far as I can tell. I suppose it would be charitable if you tipped far more than is customary.
Better?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:No, it's not necessary to tip, but if you don't (and have any understanding of the system), you're a selfish freeloader.
Or you refuse to support a system that you want to die.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:No, it's not necessary to tip, but if you don't (and have any understanding of the system), you're a selfish freeloader.
Or you refuse to support a system that you want to die.
I'm gonna go with both in this case.
Edit to add: I'm gonna go ahead and repost this, with emphasis:
quote: And for those who say that the burden of compensating the servers should not be on the customer, but on the employer, I completely agree. Restaurants should have to pay their servers more, so that you don't have to. It would be great if in a semi-fine dining restaurant a server makes a blanket $12 and hour, and you can tip a couple bucks if you want. That would be ideal. But, unfortunately, that isn't the way it works. I can't change that, you can't change that by not tipping, the server certainly can't change it, so it really doesn't matter.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Or you refuse to support a system that you want to die.
No, see, if you refused to support the system, you'd stop eating out.
Eating out and not tipping continues to support the system, and in fact abuses the system for your own benefit, making you a selfish freeloader. The restaurant doesn't see any loss by that course of action - only the server, who has no power to do anything about it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Again, I'm not quite understand how it constitutes "freeloading" if a) I'm paying for the service and b) I'm perfectly willing to go get the food myself. The server is providing a service I consider absolutely unnecessary.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:you can't change that by not tipping
People boycotting tipping is exactly what it'll take to change the system. Once it gets widespread enough, servers will no longer make enough money (since they'll have to rely on their wages, which we all know suck). When servers can't support themselves without tips, they'll find new lines of work. Which will then force owners to either abandon the tipping system altogether or retool the entire restaurant industry to run without servers.
That's how stuff gets done.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
In the meantime, yay! People working to serve us for free! I am sure that exploiting labor is the most efficient engine of change.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't have any more efficient engine at my disposal.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
The only more efficient way I can think of would be to get servers to strike. And since that would involve them not working, and not getting paid, and not supporting their families, that would be very hard to do.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You could only at restaurants that do not use that system, and you could write a letter to the owners of the restaurants you do NOT go to specifying why.
You could encourage one manager to try it another way, and then notify the media to get them do a story on the different way.
You could support the unions for service workers. This is, actually, my favorite solution. Irami has some experience with this if you want advice for how to get started.
There are LOTS of other, more effective methods that do not require theft of service. I posit that bilking your servers will affect almost zero change for good while doing some demonstrable harm to individuals.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Is this actually a goal you have, and this is the strategy you intend to employ to achieve said goal?
A) I think you will end up disappointed. This is not a plan that is destined to work.
B) You will end up with many many people thinking very unfriendly thoughts about you. I wouldn't suggest dining in the same restaurant with any kind of frequency.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:There are LOTS of other, more effective methods that do not require mooching.
I have serious doubts that those methods are more effective.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
This might be a state by state thing, but I was told by a waiter that legally if your tips were so low that at the end of a pay period you had not made minimum wage, the employer must make that difference up. According to waiter, this law isn't well known and even if you know it, you probably would not make an issue of it. Anyone know if that is actually true?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
More effective than becoming a bad tipper (thief of service)? It isn't hard - that bar is set very, very low.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
How effective do you think not tipping will be in completely reforming the restaurant industry's paying standards?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:A) I think you will end up disappointed. This is not a plan that is destined to work.
You have no way of knowing that. I'm not trying to change the tipping system, one meal at a time, but I believe that is what it will take. It's not as if such measures are unheard of -- historically, they're fairly common.
*prays no one asks him for examples*
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:More effective than becoming a bad tipper (thief of service)? It isn't hard - that bar is set very, very low.
I disagree. One of the best ways to influence behavior is to make it beneficial for them to change their behavior.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It isn't the behavior of the servers you want to change. It is the behavior of the owners and managers - and stiffing the waiter is not a direct way to affect that change.
Is this the "trickle up" method of boycotting? You are targeting (and harming) the wrong people.
JT, could you give a few examples?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Again, I'm not quite understand how it constitutes "freeloading" if a) I'm paying for the service and b) I'm perfectly willing to go get the food myself. The server is providing a service I consider absolutely unnecessary.
Then go to restaurants without servers. It's that simple. By walking through the door of a restaurant that uses servers, you are benefiting from a service that the restaurant is not paying for. You are not, in fact, paying for their service because the restaurant is not charging you for it.
Servers have many other duties besides serving you - setting up stations, cleaning stations before and after hours, restocking supplies, cleaning equipment, setting place settings, etc. For this, the restaurant pays them the bare minimum allowable by law (though there are some restaurants that are exceptions that pay more than the minimum).
The $2.30 an hour they make (on the order of $15 for a night, tops) pays for those services. In fact, sometimes servers are employed simply as "runners" to move food to the table, and make no tips at all - though other servers "tip out" to them at the end of the night for their help.
Their service to the customer - attitude, helpfulness, order taking, etc - is not paid for by the restaurant. The restaurant leaves that to tips, expecting the customer to pay for that service.
By entering a restaurant that has waiters, you must understand the way this system works. If one does not know, one is ignorant of the system. However, after being told, one is no longer ignorant of the system. If they, with full knowledge that waiters' compensation for table service is almost wholly dependendant on the tip, choose not to leave a tip, then they are being selfish and "getting something for nothing".
You may argue that you pay for food, and it's not your responsibility to pay the servers. Well, the restaurant isn't, and it's not charging you for that service. So, ultimately, you are benefiting from a service you have not paid for. If you do not compensate your server at all, you have gotten their service for nothing. Hence, freeloading. To do so willfully and consistently is selfish.
quote:People boycotting tipping is exactly what it'll take to change the system.
Wrong.
People boycotting restuarants that use servers may be what it will take.
If you don't tip, a waiter makes no money on the time spent at your table. If fewer people tip, waiters will make less money. These waiters then will not be able to pay for rent or food or anything else, and need to find other employment. This will result in more desperate waiters willing to work for less (there's such a high turnover in waitstaff that there are always more willing to work a table). Eventually these waiters will not be able to make ends meet, and a new wave of waiters will take their place.
Let's not be so naive as to think that tipping will disappear entirely by a movement to eliminate tips completely. So, there will always be a flow of money for waiters - albeit a trickle if enough people stop tipping.
What's more, waiters will be worked harder. They'll get larger sections (which is nice, because it means more tips) and won't be able to work them as effectively.
In the meantime, the restaurant suffers no penalties. They sell food at the same price and have the same rate of business. There is no downside for them to keep bringing in new waitstaff - they already train waiters constantly.
By continuing to patronize the restaurant, but not tipping, you are contributing to the system, not boycotting it. You are giving the propagators of the system profit, while hurting the people you're hoping to help. You're slapping the child to make the parent take better care of it.
That's nonsensical.
If you really wanted to do something, boycott the restaurants. Make it public why you are doing so, and get others to boycott the restaurant. If the restaurants are making no money, they will have to find a new business model.
What you're advocating is to continue paying the restaurants that use the system, but to stop paying those servers who are abused by the system. In essence, you are making yourself part of the problem instead of part of the solution.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
There is no "theft" going on when someone doesn't tip, unless that person agreed to tip when he entered the restaurant and ordered his meal. Theft entails losing ownership of something. It would be arrogant (and incorrect) of a server to assume that, simply by serving a customer, he now OWNS some of that customer's money.
You could argue that the customer has some moral obligation to provide more income to the server, but it is equally valid to claim that is the restaurant's moral duty, as the employer. In such a situation, the employer would be freeloading just as much as you could say the customer is. Do you think I have the obligation to send Nike employees in third world countries a little extra money for the shoes I purchase, just because Nike pays them too little? Do you think I'm "stealing their service" if I don't do so?
Or perhaps I really should boycott all companies that pay their employees too little, restaurants included.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:It isn't the behavior of the servers you want to change. It is the behavior of the owners and managers - and stiffing the waiter is not a direct way to affect that change.
But the servers are the only people you can affect with your dollar. I'm a firm believer of voting with your dollar. You can write all the letters you want, but until you can show restaurant owners and decision makers that this old system is causing them customers, hence, money, they won't change.
I know someone will say boycotting the restaurant can affect someone other than the owner, but I disagree. If I dislike a certain movie, the way to express my displeasure isn't to stop going to movies altogether -- that doesn't tell the decision makers what I'm unhappy with. The thing to do is to go see a movie, but a different one.
Likewise, the ideal solution would be if there were a few national chains that barred tipping. Everyone who wanted to show their displeasure with the existing system could just eat there (assuming the food was comparable -- I'm thinking on the Applebee's/Chile's level). Since no such chain exists, the next best way to affect a change (without organizing protest marches, which I doubt would be very effective anyway) is what I suggested; stop tipping.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:There is no "theft" going on when someone doesn't tip, unless that person agreed to tip when he entered the restaurant and ordered his meal.
I would argue that by entering a restaurant with servers, you are agreeing to tip them at least something. If your intent is not to tip, then you shouldn't be entering a restaurant with that service.
You are correct, though, in that it is not theft by the legal definition. Exploitation, maybe, but not technically theft.
quote:Or perhaps I really should boycott all companies that pay their employees too little, restaurants included.
A far better course of action to change a system than simply abusing the system for one's own gain and hoping the restaurants notice.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:But the servers are the only people you can affect with your dollar. I'm a firm believer of voting with your dollar.
Or, you not go to the restaurant. You have affected the OWNER of the restaurant then, instead of just the server.
In your first scenario, you are enriching the owner of the restaurant while stiffing the labor. Can you see how that doesn't serve as an impetus for change? If you want things to change, then do something to get the attention of those in power.
If you stop tipping, then you need to say that ahead of time. When the waiter first comes over, inform them that you will NOT live up to your end of the implied contract and they will not recieve a tip from you. In that case, what they do then is up to them.
If you take their services and refuse to recompense, you haven't protested anything - you've just stolen labor.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hm...I think you should try that. This weekend, go to a restaurant and inform the waiter at first contact that you are protesting the tipping system and will not be leaving a tip. If you do it with enough flair, the management will get involved. THAT might do something. Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:But the servers are the only people you can affect with your dollar.
Wrong.
quote:'m a firm believer of voting with your dollar.
As am I.
quote:You can write all the letters you want, but until you can show restaurant owners and decision makers that this old system is costing them customers, hence, money, they won't change.
Exactly. Stopping tipping but still patronizing their establishment is not costing them customers.
quote:If I dislike a certain movie, the way to express my displeasure isn't to stop going to movies altogether -- that doesn't tell the decision makers what I'm unhappy with.
No, you boycott that movie, while seeing others that you do like. You don't refuse to buy popcorn, hoping that by reduced popcorn sales the filmmakers will somehow see your displeasure. All that does is hurt the theater, not the moviemaker.
If you dislike the tipping system, patronize only restaurants that don't have servers and encourage your peers to do likewise. And publicize your reasons (letters, grass roots campaigns, etc) When restaurants with a no-server model start doing better, and restaurants with servers start losing money, the system may change.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Is it wrong to think that perhaps waiters/waitresses used to make a steady wage same as anybody else and THEN management realized they could lower their pay because of tips and customers could make up the difference? Or is this idea groundless?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I would argue that by entering a restaurant with servers, you are agreeing to tip them at least something.
I've never agreed to anything of the sort.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's an implied social contract, MPH. You know that is how it works when you walk in. You agree by walking in and saying "I'd like a table."
We use implied social contracts all the time. When I walk on the metro, I agree that if there are no seats, I will stand instead of sitting one someone's lap. In restaurants, you know that the server is paid by the customer and not the manager. When you do not pay the server, then you are failing to complete your side of the social contract.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:You agree by walking in and saying "I'd like a table."
No I don't.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Then you need to tell the people who ARE honoring their side of that social contract of your intention to not follow it. Otherwise you are being dishonest.
To do otherwise is like trespassing onto someone's property and riding around on their lawnmower. It isn't okay to do that just because you've never signed something that said "I will not joyride on your lawnmower."
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:If you stop tipping, then you need to say that ahead of time. When the waiter first comes over, inform them that you will NOT live up to your end of the implied contract and they will not recieve a tip from you. In that case, what they do then is up to them.
If you take their services and refuse to recompense, you haven't protested anything - you've just stolen labor.
If you are going to use a lack of tipping as a form of protest, this is what you would have to do. If you just don't tip, no one will know why you didn't tip (they will make assumptions, and they won't be favorable). It'd be like having a sit in on Capital Hill to save Dafur, but not telling anyone that was why you were having the sit in: incredibly to completely ineffective.
Maybe you could print up little notes that explain exactly why you aren't tipping, and that you think the server should get paid more, but by the restaurant, not you. Then pass these out to everyone you can. I suppose, it is possible, that if enough people came in to a single restaurant and left the note instead of a tip, the managers might notice. I don't know if they'd do anything though.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
It's possible, BlackBlade. I don't know how the culture started, just the way it is at present.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I would argue that by entering a restaurant with servers, you are agreeing to tip them at least something.
And I would argue that I am not. When I enter a restaurant, whether or not it has servers is almost never a factor in that decision. I never speak to the servers about my willingness to tip; we never negotiate the terms of their service. In fact, if we DID negotiate the terms of their service, I would probably be willing to pay them MORE in exchange for a greater share of their attention. But this should be made explicit, and never expected. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm becoming more and more in favor of automatic tipping. I had no idea so many people were in favor of not paying for service.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You agree by walking in and saying "I'd like a table." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No I don't.
Then let the server know that up front.
That way they can let you sit at your table for 45 minutes before taking your order, then another 45 minutes before they bring it out, and then another 45 minutes if you request anything, and another 45 minutes to bring your check.
And if you don't walk out before you eat your meal, you'll get exactly what you paid for.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't mind paying for a service. I mind being given one price, and then being expected to pay a different one because "that's the way things are done".
It's a stupid way for things to be done.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Exploiting those least able to afford is not lending a moral sheen to your case.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I'm becoming more and more in favor of automatic tipping. I had no idea so many people were in favor of not paying for service.
It honestly seems to me that EVERYONE is in favor of rewarding good service, but NOT
A: Rewarding bad service or B: Being forced to pay for service regardless of the quality. i.e
for some even
C: Being <b>forced</b> to pay tips even for good service.
I'm going to see what I can dig up about tipping culture in America.
was an interesting read, I am taking the section dealing with America with a grain of salt. But the other countries based on what (I have seen) is so far accurate.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Again, how does this apply to those of us who live where waitstaff make at least minimum wage? They ARE getting paid for their service-- as much as many janitors and secretaries do, a little less than most child care workers make.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:It honestly seems to me that EVERYONE is in favor of rewarding good service, but NOT
I think it's an even better idea to get rid of services that are essentially useless, like the people that pump your gas in Oregon.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:A far better course of action to change a system than simply abusing the system for one's own gain and hoping the restaurants notice.
Isn't that the whole idea of capitalism - that things are most efficient when everyone tries to abuse the system for their advantage, until the system compensates to become whatever is most to everyone's advantage?
quote:Everyone who wanted to show their displeasure with the existing system could just eat there (assuming the food was comparable -- I'm thinking on the Applebee's/Chile's level). Since no such chain exists, the next best way to affect a change (without organizing protest marches, which I doubt would be very effective anyway) is what I suggested; stop tipping.
There are lots of fast food chains that don't really have tipping. Why not go there, instead of to restaurants where you are served?
quote:It's an implied social contract, MPH. You know that is how it works when you walk in. You agree by walking in and saying "I'd like a table."
So, if I walked into a restaurant and said I will only tip if I think the service is good, they wouldn't let me in?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Try it! I'd love to find out.
The adventurous part of me wants to try it, but 1) I don't believe in it, and I think it's horribly rude and I don't want to do that, 2) I would be with Matt, and Matt would die a thousand deaths before he'd agree to it. The man feels bad when he only leaves 18%.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
What price weren't you expecting? When in a restaurant do you stop people on the way out to let them know they accidentally left some money on the table? Do you no know that the servers get paid next to nothing and depend on tips for income? Are you unaware that it is customary to tip at least 15% for good service? Where, in your dining experience, is there some charge that completely took you by suprise? When you get your check do you ask "Hey! What's this line with the word "tip" next to it? What are you trying to say here?"
I think you know all about the implied agreement or social contract or whatever you want to call it. I understand that you don't like it, but you know about it, and you know full well that the waiter that serves you is expecting to get compensated for good service. If you don't know about it, consider this your lesson.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:So, if I walked into a restaurant and said I will only tip if I think the service is good, they wouldn't let me in?
Now that is closer to the implied social contract that I have agreed to.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
You now see why it's such a problem, kat. And why there are movements among servers to get automatic tipping added on.
quote:And I would argue that I am not.
If you walk into an orphanage dressed like Santa with a big bag of wrapped gifts, shouting HO, HO, HO and Merry Christmas and then walk out without giving a gift to anyone, you're a jerk.
You set up an expectation based on social cues, then failed to live up to that expectation.
As a customer walking into a restaurant with servers and sitting down at a table to order food, you set up an expectation based on social cues. If you don't tip, you have failed to live up to that expectation, and you're jerk.
Protest all you want about how your freedoms to tip or not tip. The server has every right to expect a tip for serving you, just as you have every right to expect relatively prompt, courteous service.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I'm becoming more and more in favor of automatic tipping. I had no idea so many people were in favor of not paying for service.
Don't you agree that that is a backwards way of paying servers, though? If we are going to pass laws, why not just require restaurants to pay servers minimum wage??
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That isn't the normal social contract, though, so if you are going to deviate from the accepted one, which is fine, you need to inform them of that.
I think going against the system is great. Expecting everyone to guess what you're thinking and know that if they expect the normal they are going to be bilked is not.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I don't have a problem with the restaurant charging for service, but I do have a problem with them calling it a "tip" or "gratuity." Both of those terms mean a payment that is optional and at the customer's discretion. If it's mandatory, it should be on the menu and on the bill and called a "service charge" or something similar.
Edit: And yes, I acknowledge the implied social contract and all that. It's doesn't change the fact that what the words mean and how they're currently used (abused) are in conflict.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
So, for semantic's sake, you would be fine with adding 20% percent to the bill and labeling it a "service charge"?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:That isn't the normal social contract, though, so if you are going to deviate from the accepted one, which is fine, you need to inform them of that.
It's closer to the social contract I've understood my entire life than some of the other social contracts put forth in this thread.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
KQ: I think it is different when servers are paid at least minimum wage. It seems like that's more of a tip and less of a service charge.
Minimum wage is way too low, but that's a problem best solved in Washington, I think.
-----
MPH: You grew in Texas and Oklahoma, right? Tipping is slightly lower there than in, say, DC, but it's still expected.
Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: As a customer walking into a restaurant with servers and sitting down at a table to order food, you set up an expectation based on social cues. If you don't tip, you have failed to live up to that expectation, and you're jerk.
That's only if you believe that the social contract is that a tip is required regardless of the level of service. My opinion is more in line with the concept that a tip is a way of acknowledging the quality of the service. But I live in Canada and servers here are paid at least the minimum wage of the province (and their tips are completely on top of that wage).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: So, for semantic's sake, you would be fine with adding 20% percent to the bill and labeling it a "service charge"?
Why add it to the bill? Include it in the price and be done with it.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Why add it to the bill? Include it in the price and be done with it.
Because it being seperate is the only way to ensure it goes to the server. The server will get paid based on a percentage of the food he/she sold that night. If they are a very good server, thereby selling more, they make more. If they are a poor server and sell very little, they will make less. If the percentage were added to each item on the menu individually, the restaurant would pay a blanket hourly wage and everyone would make the same money, regardless of how hard they work. This would result in having fewer and fewer good servers.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Because it being seperate is the only way to ensure it goes to the server.
No it's not. They can keep it separate while still putting the full price, including service charge, on the menu.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
This could be solved by a commission like approach by the restaraunt. They could have a base wage and then make a percentage off the food they sell. Since your server is generally the one that rings up your food, it could be completely automated by computer. Taxes would be a cinch and fair as well.
I'd rather just have it included in the menu prices as well and be done with it. I think the whole server business model is terrible as shown by the difficulty and disagreements in this thread: is it charity, are they your employees, employees of the restaraunt, free agents, or whatever.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:The server will get paid based on a percentage of the food he/she sold that night. If they are a very good server, thereby selling more, they make more. If they are a poor server and sell very little, they will make less.
This doesn't jive with what more than one poster with waiting experience has said (i.e., those who tip good tip good; those who tip bad tip bad).
Which is it?
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I was refering to an added 20% service charge, where the customer has no control over tip. It wouldn't matter if it was a good tipper or a bad tipper, because there would be the "forced gratuity." Therefore a server makes more if they sell more, and the only way to sell more is to be a good server. The more I think about it, the more I like this idea.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I don't think it's for "semantic's sake" I think it's a matter of clear communication. Obviously (from this thread, even) not everyone agrees on the "implied social contract." I think that's usually the case when things are implied rather than stated flat out.
As it stands it seems the restaurants are not paying their servers for the work and instead pretending that the servers are independent contractors working for the customer (and I wonder how many times a year I'd have to eat at a fancy restaurant before I should be giving my regular server a form 1099).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
JT -- in the post you quoted, I think "good server" was defined as a server who manages to serve a lot of people a lot of food.
edit: I guess I was right.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Wow -- six pages of posts in two days? I don't think I'm gonna read back through all of this.... Must be strong opinions here.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: I was refering to an added 20% service charge, where the customer has no control over tip. It wouldn't matter if it was a good tipper or a bad tipper, because there would be the "forced gratuity." Therefore a server makes more if they sell more, and the only way to sell more is to be a good server. The more I think about it, the more I like this idea.
I don't like it and probably wouldn't go to such a place much. Let the restaurant come to their own agreement with the servers and take care if it themselves. I really don't care to be a part of their accounting service. I don't want an itemized bill that shows my portion of what goes to the Sysco delivery truck driver, the cooks, management, franchise fee, advertisizing, servers, etc etc. I just want to see, on the menu, how much a dish is and pay that price when I'm done.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
"You're a selfish bastard if you don't do X."
"But I never agreed to do X."
"But it's understood that you always do X."
"Um, it's obviously not understood by everybody."
"Selfish bastard."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's understood by you now.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It's understood that you think so.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It doesn't matter what I think. It DOES matter what the servers and restaurants think. You understand that they think so.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
You really don't understand? You really don't get it? I'm sorry. I'm suprised.
[edited to be nicer]
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:JT -- in the post you quoted, I think "good server" was defined as a server who manages to serve a lot of people a lot of food.
Ahh. See, that's not good. That's fast. They're not necessarily the same, and it seems to me that that definition of 'good' is more beneficial to the server and owner than the customer.
Since turnaround isn't the main consideration of most diners. Good food, good service, and a reasonable price are.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It doesn't matter what I think. It DOES matter what the servers and restaurants think. You understand that they think so.
Good point.
I still choose to not be bound to this "agreement" that I never agreed to.
Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
Do servers honestly think that the social contract doesn't include good service? And by good service I mean being polite, understanding, helpful, and efficient.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I still choose to not be bound to this "agreement" that I never agreed to.
Since you understand that they will intepret your actions as if you have, then you either cannot go to restaurants where tipping is expected or else MUST inform the waiter at first meeting that no tip will be forthcoming. Otherwise you are taking advantage.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Originally posted by solo: Do servers honestly think that the social contract doesn't include good service? And by good service I mean being polite, understanding, helpful, and efficient.
Almost all servers understand this completely. That is why they are shocked when they give good service and get horrible/no tips. When waiting tables I would occasionally have a bad day, and when I got bad tips because of it, I was neither suprised nor offended.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think that they have as much duty to explain to me the implied social contract they're working under as I do.
Actually, moreso, as they are the one providing the service.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
They are working under the norm. You are working under one that is not the norm. The onus is on you.
I think it's fantastic to march to the beat of your own drummer. I think it's very rude to expect everyone to change their beats to yours without notification.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I think that they have as much duty to explain to me the implied social contract they're working under as I do.
That is true, they do. That's why most restaurants have a little blurb at the bottom of the menu stating that 15% tips are customary. Or were you expecting servers to start their table banter with a talk about expected compensation?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:That is true, they do. That's why most restaurants have a little blurb at the bottom of the menu stating that 15% tips are customary.
Notice that those blurbs never say "regardless of service", which is the social contract that apparently I'm supposed to follow.
Also, "customary" is not the same thing as "expected", "mandatory", or "for all people who aren't theives".
Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk:
quote:Originally posted by solo: Do servers honestly think that the social contract doesn't include good service? And by good service I mean being polite, understanding, helpful, and efficient.
Almost all servers understand this completely. That is why they are shocked when they give good service and get horrible/no tips. When waiting tables I would occasionally have a bad day, and when I got bad tips because of it, I was neither suprised nor offended.
Which is why I think most people are against the forced tip idea. A customer should have the right to decide how much to tip someone based on their level of service. I fully believe that this tip should be completely seperate from the wage that the server makes (which should be at least the minimum wage for the state - not a different "server" wage).
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:That's only if you believe that the social contract is that a tip is required regardless of the level of service. My opinion is more in line with the concept that a tip is a way of acknowledging the quality of the service. But I live in Canada and servers here are paid at least the minimum wage of the province (and their tips are completely on top of that wage).
The Canadian social contract is a slightly different one from the US social contract, which has resulted in many jokes about Canadians being cheap. A lot of that comes from the fact that tipping is not as expected north of the border.
quote:I still choose to not be bound to this "agreement" that I never agreed to.
You're not bound to anything. You can parade in a santa suit in front of orphans, flaunting a bag of gits and giving them nothing. We're not stopping you. Go to it. You never agreed to give them anything.
Be prepared to have people call you a jerk, though, for spoiling the expectations of all the orphans.
You can choose not to tip, too, but be prepared to have servers call you a jerk and curse you behind your back (and possibly to your face), or worse.
Not that I'm advocating this in the least, but there have been people stabbed by disgruntled waiters after not leaving a tip. While the patron I'm sure feels they did nothing to deserve retaliation, the waiter surely did.
If you know of a social convention/expectation and willingly break it, don't be surprised if people think less of you for your actions.
As an aside, I worked with a waiter named Frank in Atlanta who was very good at working big parties. One night there was a table of 18 that were out from some big downtown company. They bought a lot of wine, lots of drinks, lots of food, and made a total mess of the tables and floor in their section. The waiter was as upbeat and positive as always, and the group had a great time. Their bill came to over $1,500.
Then they left without leaving a tip.
Frank was livid. It was his entire night, including cleaning up after them, and not a penny.
The thing is, he had talked a lot with them and found out where they worked. He went down to that company the next day and raised holy hell. He called out individual people that he remembered as being cheapskates and jerks, demanded to see their boss, and generally raised a huge ruckus.
Amazingly enough, the boss came out to talk with him and calm him down, and ended up giving him $300 out of his own pocket after apologizing for the way his workers acted.
I would have loved to be a fly on the wall in that office after Frank left (and I'm very surprised they didn't have him removed by security).
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Notice that those blurbs never say "regardless of service", which is the social contract that apparently I'm supposed to follow.
Okay, I now see that this is not something we have had an understanding on. In the only social contract I'm aware of (in regards to tipping servers) it is understood that bad service results in bad tips, really really bad service means no tips, and average to good service results in 15% and up. I don't think anyone expects you to tip 20% for a horrible server. I would hope you'd put down at least 5%, but if the service is bad enough, I fully support not tipping. But I would first talk to the manager and let them know why there will be no tip.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
The problem is that no one really follows the 'standard' on any consistent basis. Several posters have mentioned changing their tipping habits depending on the time of day, price of food, and other factors out of the control of the server.
The result of all this is that if you leave a 5% tip, the waiter has no idea if it's due to poor service or because you're cheap. My guess is that the majority will assume the latter, which defeats the purpose of using the tip as feedback for your server.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Sorry for the double post, but I just had a thought (hard to believe, I know).
I think I'll try (when eating alone or when I'm buying the meal for everyone at the table (aka a date)) telling the server up front that I will tip X dollars or X% of the bill as a base. That way they'll know if they get more they did an exemplary job and if they get less they slacked.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Totally agree with vonk, there.
If the waiter behaves in some egregious manner (is insulting, for instance, or sneezes in your food and then gives it to you, or some other ridiculousness), I would totally complain to the manager and give him no tip. Likely, I would press to have the food comped, as well.
But if a waiter brings the food and drinks asked for, stops by a couple times to see if anything is needed, and brings the check when asked - he did his job, and should get a tip.
The matter is how much.
If he did things at an average, he deserves an average tip. If he was very slow or misinputs things in the computer or forgot to get things asked for, etc (actual server mistakes), I understand giving a lower tip than your average. If he was personable and friendly and brought something positive to the dining experience beyond mere servitude, I would think he'd get a better than average tip.
The thing is, what's average?
For me, average is 20%. But I've been a server, and I'm more sympathetic to the server's world. A poor serving experience may bring me down to 15% and a good serving experience may bump it to 25%.
The most publicized standard is a 15% average, with variance in both directions.
It's people whose average is 10% that bother me, or who walk in expecting to leave 10% or less. Worst is if they don't believe in tipping and will leave nothing regardless of service.
If you go to a server based restaurant, expect average service and expect to tip an average amount. It's pretty simple.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Which is why it is a good idea to talk to a manager, or at least tell the waiter. I agree that if you just leave $2 on the table and leave, the server will think your a jerk. But if you talk to a manager and tell them why, the server will be strongly encouraged to improve and no one will think the less of you.
And, while it is true that a lot of what makes a person tip is out of the servers control, and that a lot of people will tip the same way regardless of service, we can still make the effort to work within the system and use it correctly. I disagree with taking an fatalist attitude about it: "If the server won't be getting any feedback from the tip I leave, then it just doesn't matter how much I tip." It does still matter. A lot.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:The problem is that no one really follows the 'standard' on any consistent basis. Several posters have mentioned changing their tipping habits depending on the time of day, price of food, and other factors out of the control of the server.
Yes, but most people talked about increasing their tips based on factors, not decreasing them. There is still a standard base.
quote:The result of all this is that if you leave a 5% tip, the waiter has no idea if it's due to poor service or because you're cheap. My guess is that the majority will assume the latter, which defeats the purpose of using the tip as feedback for your server.
Very true. The cheapskates of the world have taken the teeth out of leaving a bad tip as a means of showing displeasure.
If you want to show displeasure, find a manager. As has been said by vonk, myself, and others.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Because it being seperate is the only way to ensure it goes to the server.
Which is all the more reason why servers should not collect tips at ALL, but should be paid SALARIES. That way, you know exactly what goes to the server.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
No you don't. Unless they publish the salaries.
With a tip, you know exactly how much goes to the server.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:If you go to a server based restaurant, expect average service and expect to tip an average amount. It's pretty simple.
Exactly. And I would put an average tip at 15%. If your not willing to pay that average tip, expecting average service, then you should go to Luby's.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Yes, they SHOULD be, but they AREN'T. And I maintain that if you intend to not tip based on a protest of the payment system, you should make this clear to the server and the management.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:With a tip, you know exactly how much goes to the server.
That's actually not the case, since I don't know the base salary of the server, or what the restaurant's tip policy is.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
That's true. Tip-out can be a b**** sometimes. I've had nights were I only pull in $25 and then I have to turn around and give $8 to the bussers and hosts. But, that's just the way it is sometimes.
But you can pretty much assume that almost every restaurant you walk in to is paying the servers within 25 cents of bare minimum.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I don't buy more food if my server is a good server. I buy the food I am craving. As a pregnant woman, I can pretty much guarantee you that if I am craving mozarella sticks, the only thing I will buy is mozarella sticks. If the waiter tries to sell me on something more expensive or different, I might stab him with a fork. Cause dang it, I came in for mozarella sticks and that is what I want. The percentage thing is actually one of the reasons I don't like tipping. If I go into Olive Garden and get the soup/breadstick all you can eat meal (which is pretty cheap), the waiter has to do just as much work as if I ordered the most expensive meal on the item. So, now the waiter is penalized because of what I ordered, not anything he did. As far as the social contract, I view it as I will tip you in accordance with how good my service is. If you offend and anger me greatly, you get nothing. If you do some things wrong, enough that I am perturbed, maybe 10% tip. If you neither anger nor please me 15% and if you do somehting that makes my dining experience more pleasurable, you get greater than 20%. The 0 tip would be a time when I would complain to manager as well as leaving no tip (though I have has a waitress tell me the manager was on break and wouldn't be back for atleast an hour so she just got 0 tip without complaint to manager).
Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: The Canadian social contract is a slightly different one from the US social contract, which has resulted in many jokes about Canadians being cheap. A lot of that comes from the fact that tipping is not as expected north of the border.
It is not true that tipping is not as expected in Canada. Tipping is expected at any restaurant where a server takes your order and brings your food. 15% is pretty much standard but only if the social contract is kept on both sides.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:As far as the social contract, I view it as I will tip you in accordance with how good my service is. If you offend and anger me greatly, you get nothing. If you do some things wrong, enough that I am perturbed, maybe 10% tip. If you neither anger nor please me 15% and if you do somehting that makes my dining experience more pleasurable, you get greater than 20%. The 0 tip would be a time when I would complain to manager as well as leaving no tip (though I have has a waitress tell me the manager was on break and wouldn't be back for atleast an hour so she just got 0 tip without complaint to manager).
If everyone did this, there would be little to no problem.
As for the good servers selling more thing, that works over an entire shift. An individual isn't going to order something they don't want, but a good server will be able to read his customers, and know his product well enough that he can increase his sales by suggesting something that the customer genuinely wants, they just didn't know it.
Posted by Sean (Member # 689) on :
I actually like the current system. I think servers generally make more this way (albeit with more variance), and we get better service than they do in, say, Europe where there isn't as much incentive to not ignore you for long stretches. I'd regard pretty much all the suggested changes as a step backwards.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:We use implied social contracts all the time. When I walk on the metro, I agree that if there are no seats, I will stand instead of sitting one someone's lap.
I think there's a big difference between implied social contracts, like the metro example, and implied financial contracts. Like you said, we use implied social contracts all the time, and I have no problem with that. But also think that implied financial contracts are pretty much always a bad idea.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholar: This might be a state by state thing, but I was told by a waiter that legally if your tips were so low that at the end of a pay period you had not made minimum wage, the employer must make that difference up. According to waiter, this law isn't well known and even if you know it, you probably would not make an issue of it. Anyone know if that is actually true?
Since I'm skipping a lot of posts when answering this question forgive me if it has already been answered, but yes. The restaurant is required by law to ensure that all of their staff are being paid at least minimum wage. Since they have to delcare what taxes they are paying and on what amounts the governement is very much aware if a restaurant is not doing this and could be smacked down by the department of labor.
Edited for spelling. (Sudafed makes me loopy.)
[ September 15, 2006, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: andi330 ]
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Solo, I apologize if I characterized Canadian tipping culture in error. It was the only explanation I've ever been given why Canadians (in particular those from Quebec) generally don't tip as well as US Citizens. It's been the reason given to me by Canadians, too, which is why assumed it to be true.
Having no direct experience with Canadian culture, I have to apologize and plead ignorance.
quote:a good server will be able to read his customers, and know his product well enough that he can increase his sales by suggesting something that the customer genuinely wants, they just didn't know it.
This was that guy Frank, who flipped out on that business party. He managed to make a party a party, and everyone always had a great time - and ordered more - than they thought they would. He'd make up interesting shots that everyone would want to try, or give such glowing reviews of some of our best items that people would buy more of them (it was a tapas style restaurant, so this worked better than it would in a traditional style restaurant).
People at his tables just had a lot of fun, and he ordinarily would walk out with 25% or more from a table. Though, on the other side of the coin, he'd sometimes get tables who had a lot of fun, but still didn't tip well at all.
As I've said already, tip amount is based as much or more on the customer as it is on the quality of service.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
Some people in this thread have suggested that in a salary based system a waiter has little incentive to provide good service. This is, of course, not the case. The waiter is employed by the owner of the restaurant, and if he is not providing the restaurant's customers with good service he is not doing his job and can be fired. Simple as that. Rude, inattentive or slow waiters are a certain way for restaurants to lose repeat customers and acquire a bad reputation, so the owners have a strong incentive to keep an eye on their servitors. Really, it moves the responsibility to admonish bad waiters from the customers onto the employers, where, frankly, I think it properly belongs.
-------------------
Another thing, in a tipping system, what is the justification for giving a percentage tip rather than a fixed sum of §X? I realise that in a high-end establishment you can expect better service (or more fawning or whatnot), but is the work of serving a §100 dinner really worth ten times as much in tipping as one costing §10?
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote: but is the work of serving a §100 dinner really worth ten times as much in tipping as one costing §10?
Yes, it is. It is much different, and much harder, to wait tables in a high end restaurant. I've worked at IHOP and at Pappa's Seafood House (a semi-fine dining restaurant) and there is a VAST difference in the time and energy it takes to prep and serve at a higher end restaurant. From more complex garnish, to more specific changes and modifications, to making sure that everything is absolutely perfect in the delivery and presentation. You are also more attentive to the table, refill drinks more frequently, are more courteous and accomodating on top of having to appear neater and nicer and pay for dry cleaning.
So yes, it is quite a bit different serving a $100 dinner as opposed to a $10 dinner. The person serving the former works harder and deserves a larger compensation.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Been lurking in this thread for a while, want to add a bit to the discussion.
== Factual Stuff == Living in Canada, having spent a good amount of time in China, and a reasonable amount of time in the US.
I can agree that the average tip in the US is between 15% and 20% while the average tip in Canada is between 10% and 15%. As I understand it, as a result (or perhaps a cause) servers here are paid decent wages. Paying for stuff in China is a breeze because there is no sales tax and no tipping (aside from tour guides and tour drivers that know that this is a good way to exploit tourists). I would love to have such a convenient system in Canada/US. On an aside, I do recall a tour guide in France that explicitly refused a tip when we asked him(!) what the custom was, saying that he was a professional and that as a professional it would be degrading to accept a tip.
== Less factual stuff ===
I would like to flesh-out that little side-thread about the economics of not tipping.
Let's assume a system (with tipping) at equilibirum with X restaurants, Y servers, and Z customers.
Now, what happens if only Z-5 customers continue (long-term) as a protest against tipping? Well, there is less revenue at restaurants so both X and Y decrease until the system is back at equilibrium. The remaining servers are still being tipped the same and ther remaining restaurants still pay the servers the same. While a short term reduction in customers can reduce the number of servers (as restaurants cut costs), long term the restaurants will reduce in number and still optimally pay servers the same amount and expect the same tips.
Now, what happens if all Z customers reduce their tips? Of the Y servers, some will seek better jobs, those that cannot will either seek better jobs or become less efficient as a protest (causing the restaurants to either raise wages in order to either retain servers or better motivate those that remain). The biggest argument seems to be "But customers not tipping as well take-up space!" Yes, but only in the short term. If customers that tip badly leave, then there will be fewer restaurants and fewer servers. Customers do not "take up" space, they are the only reason space exists in the first place.
A badly tipping customer that displaces a well-tipping person, does not cause the well-tipping person to leave the system. They either go to another restaurant or cause demand for more restaurants.
Thus, for those seeking a change in the current system, the choice seems very clear.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As it stands it seems the restaurants are not paying their servers for the work and instead pretending that the servers are independent contractors working for the customer (and I wonder how many times a year I'd have to eat at a fancy restaurant before I should be giving my regular server a form 1099).
My sister worked at a pancake house while she was in high school and they sent her a 1099 instead of a W-2.
It cost them big time, but apparently they had been getting away with it for years and no one had spoken up.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Oh, and one other note, for a system that claims to reward good service, tipping is a pretty bad way of doing things.
Along with the problems with not being able to tell whether a low tip is caused by (being foreign, being on a budget, genuine protest, a bad day, bad service, an arithmetic mistake) or bad service. A much bigger determinant of your tips seems not to be your tipping percentage, but your meal.
Let's say I walk into a restaurant and order (for simplcity) a $100 steak and I tip the average 15%. That is $15. A "bad tipper" tips 10% which is $10. A "good" tipper tips 20% which is $20. So the range is $10 to $20. However, let's say I just got paid so I order a steak twice as big at $200. The range is now $20 to $40. The "bad" tipper on payday is now tipping the same as the the good tipper on a normal day.
Even worse, say the "bad" tipper got a glass of wine to celebrate at $20 while the good tipper got water. The "bad" tipper is now paying $2 vs. $0. The "bad" tipper is paying infinitely times more tips than the "good tipper."
The server didn't do anything different. The disparity in tips due to the type of meal seems to be much bigger than that from tipping habits.
Why not whine about what people order rather than their tipping habits when that would seem more effective?
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
You are assuming that most "bad" tippers leave a specific percentage. I have not found that to be the case. In my experience "bad" tippers have a specific amount that they tip, often as little as $1-2 (or even the change (coins) that they get back after paying) regardless of the amount of food that they order. Here in the south we have the people who leave religious tracts instead of tips as well. These people were annyoing for two reasons. 1) They assume that since I work in a restaurant that I am not a Christian and that they need to leave me literature so that I might convert; and 2)they do not seem to realize that if I were not already a Christian, leaving me a piece of literature instead of money isn't going to make me open to a religious conversion, it's just going to upset me.
Good tippers are the people who don't just factor up the x percentage of their bill, but take into account the amount of time they spent at my table. This is why most people consider a "good" tip to be upwards of 15%. For example, I had a famly sit in my section and take two of my tables. They ordered coffee and sodas and an order of fries. The order probably didn't come to more than $10. But they also stayed for an hour and a half. When I cleaned the tables there was a $20 tip waiting for me. Obviously I would never expect anyone to leave me a 200% tip so this was unexpected. However, the family took into account the fact that I was an attentive server and that they were taking up two of my tables for a long time during a relatively busy portion of the day. Realizing that I could have made more money (those tables could have been sat twice each in that time period) they left me enough to compensate.
That's something a "good" tipper does. Not necessarily tipping 200% but taking all the factors into account and leaving what they think is fair. A "bad" tipper in the same situation would have left me maybe a dollar. 10% yes, but how much more could I have made by having those tables sat twice over, even if they were both sat both times by "bad" tippers.
Posted by OSTY (Member # 1480) on :
A waiter working for a salary of $2.50 an hour has taken on an applied risk. This is not a responsibility of the customer to pay him more because he took on an applied risk. That applied risk is that he will really be making more than $2.50 an hour from his tips. Also, I will state here that if the person is not making at least 8% of the total income during their work period, the IRS requires the resturant to fund the difference. If this person is not willing to take on this applied risk, then they need to go and work at McDonalds where they will make minimum wage.
Gratuity is just that. It is a gift given by someone to show appreciation of the work that was done.
In my job, as a substitue teacher, I take on an applied risk. If the phone rings, I have a job. If it doesn't, I don't work. There are months that I do not make enough money to support my family (thankfully my wife does) but no one is forced to give me money because of this. But my job is totally depenent on the service I provide and how well I do it. Many things are out of my control in these situation (lesson plans or lack of them, behavior problems in the class,ect), but I must deal with them I would make more money that way but that is not how the system works. I would be more than happy to charge each student I deal with $1 and go with that.I took an applied risk. Just as the waiter/waitress has. If they don't like the applied risk, find a new line of work. Gratuity is a gift. Once you force gratuity, it is no longer gratuity.
That being said, I also would like to approach the fact of the statement of so many things being out of the control of the wait staff. That is totally false. If I get cold food, usually the wait staff is not suprised to hear it. I hear an oh I thought the plate has sat there too long or it felt a little cool as I carried it out. So why did you bring it out, because you thought you could get away with it. I understand that not everything is totally in control of the wait staff, but many things that they would have you believe are out of their control are in their control. Trust me, I come from a long line of people who worked as servers in resturants. I have had the opposite too, recently a waitress handed me my drink and asked me to taste it because she didn't think the bartender placed enough rum in my rum and coke. She was correct and quickly brought me a shot of rum to add to it. She got an exception tip, because she went above and beyond the call of duty.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I will say it again. If you do not tip, or leave a smaller tip because you received poor service that is one thing. If you don't tip because you don't believe in tipping, don't eat at restaurants where it is expected. And it is expected. The fact that you don't like that it is expected is not the fault of the wait staff. There are plenty of restaurants that are buffet style or, like Fudruckers, buzz you when your food is ready where you have no server and don't need to tip. If you go into a restaurant where you are going to have a server planning on not tipping "just because" then at least do your server the courtesy of telling them before you order your food. Then the server can concentrate on tables that will be paying them, and get to you when they get to you, if they serve you at all.
I've never had someone tell me ahead of time that they weren't going to tip, even people who probably never tip their server. Why? Because they know that if they tell me in advance, "I'm not going to tip you," then they're going to get crummy service because they aren't paying me. The restaurant doesn't pay me, not really. You have to have a seriously BAD week waiting tables to come it at below minimum wage for the WEEK. The restaurant is only required to make up the difference if the total pay period is below minimum wage, but most servers live day to day, just as many people live paycheck to paycheck. Getting the difference next Tuesday may be better than nothing, but maybe all I've had to eat is peanut butter for the past 4 days.
And if your plate is actually cold when it comes out to the table, then it hasn't been sitting in the right place. A plate that's been sitting under the heat lamps for a long time is usually HOT not cool.
Posted by Skylark (Member # 9732) on :
I think it is ridiculous to add a 20% tip automatically to the bill. First of all people know when the take the job that they are receiving a low hourly wage, and that their pay is based on their tips. Restaurants make huge profits with such a write up on food. Why should the consumer pay twice? I tip based on the serve. If my husband and I go to dinner and the waitress only pays attention to my husband, I make a point of grabbing the bill to let the bimbo know where the tip is coming from.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
It's also been said earlier in this thread by someone else, but I'll reiterate it. If you don't want to pay gratuity and think that restaurants ought to pay their servers what they are worth (which is far more than minimum wage based on the amount of work that a server does) then expect to see food prices increase at restaurants who stop using gratuity to pay their servers.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Well, duh. I think that's the point that people who don't like the tip system have been making -- charge what is needed to pay the emplyees for doing their jobs. And let the tip be something extra for exceptional service.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Wow, Osty. There so much I take exception to in your post that I don't know where to start.
First the idea of applied risk. Either you haven't read anything anyone's said about a social contract and acting contrary to reasonable social expectations, or you've ignored it. Either way, I'm not repeating it here. Scroll back.
Second, don't compare being a substitute teacher to being a server. I've done both for about equal parts of my life (almost two years of each), and they are in no way similar, or have anything close to the same amount of financial risk.
A substitute teacher's pay is not based on quality of service, at all (though it's a testament to you doing your job properly that you think it is, so I'll commend you on a job well done). For every sub who actually does their job and follows the lesson plans, there's another who sits in the room with a newspaper ignoring the lesson plans completely and getting the same pay. If you're registered in a large school district, they'll need people almost every day - if you're not, then you can register in several school districts and accept or decline jobs as you like.
Also, no matter what happens in the classroom to make life more difficult (lack of lesson plans, student behavior, assemblies, fire drills, bomb scares, etc), you still make the same wage. The only "applied risk" a sub has is school cancellation, due to weather for instance.
quote:That being said, I also would like to approach the fact of the statement of so many things being out of the control of the wait staff. That is totally false.
This makes me think more that it wasn't that you didn't read the social contract comments, but ignored them. Because you also seem to be ignoring (actually directly contradicting) the comments from hatrackers who wait tables (and have waited tables) with direct experience telling you otherwise.
Are you calling us all liars, or do you think you somehow know better than people who have actually done the job?
quote:I understand that not everything is totally in control of the wait staff, but many things that they would have you believe are out of their control are in their control. Trust me, I come from a long line of people who worked as servers in resturants
Meaning you've never done the job? I come from a long line of police and military, but that doesn't mean I'm qualified to do either - or to speak intelligently about the day to day aspects of the job.
There are obviously things that are the server's fault. There are just as many things that aren't. If you want, I can give you a list.
quote:I have had the opposite too, recently a waitress handed me my drink and asked me to taste it because she didn't think the bartender placed enough rum in my rum and coke. She was correct and quickly brought me a shot of rum to add to it.
On a somewhat related note, a weak drink is almost invariably not the server's fault. If the server (such as in this case) was at the bar while the bartender poured it, they might catch a low pour. If they enter the order from a computer terminal, they likely won't be.
Strangely enough, a "weak" drink is sometimes not the bartender's fault either. When I worked at Macaroni Grill in NJ (and at Cafe Tu Tu Tango in Atlanta), there were strict recipes (some premade) for drinks that the management held you to closely. A "single" drink had a shot, and a "double" had two shots. Now, most people are used to about a shot and a half in their drinks, or so, making the single taste weak - but when the server explained they'd have to charge extra for a double, the customers got frustrated.
It's a problem of the system, that the staff need to deal with - the amount of times, as a server, I've had to explain the single/double issue (knowing damn well that it was likely losing me tips) was astounding. I had to have the manager go over to tables on several occasions to explain, as well.
In a looser setting, such as the pub I worked at, I could pour whatever I wanted. Normally I kept it to 1.25 ounces per drink, though for regulars who I knew liked more, I gave them more.
At corporate restaurants, there are more restrictions on what servers must and must not do, and can and cannot do. To say that things being out of the control of the waitstaff is "totally false" smacks of ignorance of the job.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
I was thinking about tipping a bit more and wondered: is there any other occupation where the price for a service is not agreed upon up front and where one party to the transaction is legally free to unilaterally decide how much (or even if) he wants to pay for a service already rendered?
Another thought: is it not so that the overly generous tippers are basically subsidizing those people who refuse to tip what the service is actually worth?
Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Solo, I apologize if I characterized Canadian tipping culture in error. It was the only explanation I've ever been given why Canadians (in particular those from Quebec) generally don't tip as well as US Citizens. It's been the reason given to me by Canadians, too, which is why assumed it to be true.
Having no direct experience with Canadian culture, I have to apologize and plead ignorance.
No need to appologize. You might actually be right about Quebec. They are a pretty different culture than the rest of the country.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Then the server can concentrate on tables that will be paying them, and get to you when they get to you, if they serve you at all.
But, see, that's NOT the implied contract. Ask any restaurant manager if he thinks that a server, told in advance that he won't be getting a tip, has the right to ignore or underserve that customer.
And just to clear up any possible misconceptions: I have been both a waiter, a pizza delivery guy, AND a chain restaurant manager. I know quite well the economics of tipping -- from a variety of angles.
Tipping is, in a very real sense, like blackjack. It's gambling, but it's possible to "win" if you've studied the house long enough. And people who've learned to game the system can make slightly more than an average server's wage at any given restaurant bracket; people who have not struggle by, waiting for the one or two big scores a week. This goes for tippERs, too; clever tippers -- and this is especially true for bars -- tend to cultivate favorite places and servers, and expect benefits to accrue to them as a consequence of that financial largesse.
But servers are NOT third-party contractors. If they were, you could pick up the Yellow Pages and hire someone to be your bartender for the night, accompanying you from bar to bar and pouring drinks just the way you like them. They're employees, and they're underpaid employees, and businesses profit from exploiting those employees by making them feel like it's their responsibility to bring in a living wage through what is essentially a reliance on the charity of customers.
And lest you think it's NOT charity, consider what we're hearing from the servers on this thread: that you HAVE to tip, that you're practically a criminal if you DON'T tip, and that it's downright rude to walk into a restaurant and expect service without paying an additional unspecified amount tied inexplicably to the total cost of your meal. Tipping, they point out, is a social function on which servers rely; they couldn't make ends meet without it.
And if that's your motivation for tipping, it's charity.
Heck, I generally tip 20%, for all that I think it's odious -- and that's because I've been a server and I know servers are otherwise underpaid. Charity, in other words. Do I think someone deserves $10 for bringing four drinks and three plates to my $50 meal, and asking twice behind a fake smile over the course of forty-five minutes if everything tastes all right? Of course not. That's simply not what that service is worth. But we provide an extra amount above and beyond the actual value of the service out of the kindness of our hearts: charity.
And remember, I don't get to detail the extent of my appreciation of that service, either. If someone goes the extra mile, warns me away from a particularly awful version of a dish and steers me to something good, has to clean up a spill from my toddler and manages to get all the food out just before a large order jams up the kitchen for an hour, do I write him a receipt for each of those or do I leave him an extra five bucks? Ten bucks? What WERE those things worth to me, and what did they actually cost him in time and effort?
There's no real mechanism by which the value of service can be reflected or measured by tips. Anyone who claims that there's an implied contract needs to first explain how that's possible when absolutely no element of that contract is explicit, besides the "flat" expectation of 15% (becoming 20% nowadays, thanks largely to a flat minimum wage) which simply represents the amount we all acknowledge that restaurants underpay their waitstaff.
[ September 16, 2006, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
All [5] of the restaurant managers I have worked for actually would have understood giving minimal service to a customer who declares (or is a known) non-tipper. [I know this for a fact in 3 cases, but I'm pretty sure in the other 2 as well.] That is, I would have been told to be polite, get the food out there, and concentrate my extra service elsewhere.
You couldn't be foul-mouthed or ignore them completely, but the managers knew we were working on tips. And my restaurant experience ranges from Showbiz Pizza to one of the oldest country clubs in the south US.
----------
Edited to add for the financial system impaired: 1099, W-2, and the IRS (I had to look it up anyway )
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
They'd have "understood" it, sure. But consider what you just listed as the bare minimum: be polite, and get the food out there.
What else does a server have to actually DO? A server is polite and gets the food out. To do LESS than that is not to be a server. And yet that's practically the definition of good service.
So to make your displeasure noticed, you're going to have to do one of two things: be LESS polite, or get the food out more slowly or less accurately. Don't give refills. Avoid the table, even when they're trying to get your attention.
And at that point, you're not being polite or getting the food out. Which means you aren't actually serving the table anymore.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Ask any restaurant manager if he thinks that a server, told in advance that he won't be getting a tip, has the right to ignore or underserve that customer.
To the customer, they'll probably say "of course not, that's terrible!" but to another manager they'll probably say "that guy's asking for trouble, don't worry about it if he complains."
Most managers were once servers. They understand that the waiter is working for tips. They also understand that if someone is going to make it known up front that they aren't going to tip, they likely aren't going to order much. Cheapness begets cheapness.
quote:is there any other occupation where the price for a service is not agreed upon up front and where one party to the transaction is legally free to unilaterally decide how much (or even if) he wants to pay for a service already rendered?
Street performers, maybe? But I would say a similar social contract applies there, too. If you don't want to give them money, just keep walking. If you stop and watch for a half an hour, and then don't give anything, that's pretty inconsiderate.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote: And remember, I don't get to detail the extent of my appreciation of that service, either. If someone goes the extra mile, warns me away from a particularly awful version of a dish and steers me to something good, has to clean up a spill from my toddler and manages to get all the food out just before a large order jams up the kitchen for an hour, do I write him a receipt for each of those or do I leave him an extra five bucks? Ten bucks? What WERE those things worth to me, and what did they actually cost him in time and effort?
This is where I ask to speak to the manager or leave a detailed comment card, or write a letter if time at the moment did not permit. I'm not saying it is necessary to do so, but it can be good policy to practice positive reinforcement in the world. (Even if the effect can get diluted out, I still think it may make a difference. Did and does for me, even though I wish I was beyond that. I still need a "hey, good job!" every so often to keep the batteries recharged.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:They understand that the waiter is working for tips.
Which you agree is a poor state of affairs?
-------
quote:This is where I ask to speak to the manager or leave a detailed comment card, or write a letter if time at the moment did not permit.
And yet, consider: this is not going to get that employee a raise. It might at best be considered when it's time for a promotion. Without also tipping an extra amount, the time you spend talking to that employee's manager actually winds up costing the restaurant money for no net benefit to the employee.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:What else does a server have to actually DO? A server is polite and gets the food out. To do LESS than that is not to be a server. And yet that's practically the definition of good service.
The "be polite and get the food out there" also means that if there's another table's food up at the same time, the nontipper can wait. If you're swamped, get to the tipping customers and don't worry about that guy as much. If he waits an extra five minutes or more, don't worry about it. As long as he gets the food, and you get the money for the check.
I've let bad tippers sit before. The first two or three times I saw them, they left less than 10%, so the next times I saw them I didn't bother rushing. They got frustrated, kept trying to get my attention, and I smiled and said I'd be right with them, then promptly did other work I needed to do. By the end of the night, they're frustrated, didn't have a good experience, and.... left the same bad tip they left the first two times with good service.
I've seen waiters repeatedly go to bad tipping tables asking if they need anything, then ignoring whatever they ask for. Sometimes they send other waiters over to "check up" who then promptly forget what was asked for.
And that's when waiters are being kind. I've seen the horror stories about what can be done to food between the kitchen and the table for problem customers.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I smiled and said I'd be right with them, then promptly did other work I needed to do.... And that's when waiters are being kind. I've seen the horror stories about what can be done to food between the kitchen and the table for problem customers.
Oh, I'm not disputing the fact that servers can be petty and immature when their misplaced anger at being underpaid finds a target in a customer rather than their employer.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: They'd have "understood" it, sure. But consider what you just listed as the bare minimum: be polite, and get the food out there.
What else does a server have to actually DO? A server is polite and gets the food out. To do LESS than that is not to be a server. And yet that's practically the definition of good service.
So to make your displeasure noticed, you're going to have to do one of two things: be LESS polite, or get the food out more slowly or less accurately. Don't give refills. Avoid the table, even when they're trying to get your attention.
And at that point, you're not being polite or getting the food out. Which means you aren't actually serving the table anymore.
1. Refilling water 2. Checking back to ask if the food is okay 3. Anticipating when someone will need something extra and providing it unobtrusively 4. Getting the food out as soon as it hits the hotplate 5. Hounding the kitchen if need be to get the food out onto the hotplate 6. Again unobtrusively, being just present/visible enough to catch needs (or dash in to clean up a customer spill, what have you) without hovering 7. There's more, but I'm not fully awake
The service I provided at the country club was far different from the service I provided at the pizza joint. This was because of extensive training -- it took a lot of thought and practice to be seamless, to make the tending so unobtrusive as to seem not even there. The goal was to avoid being noticed as being helpful, but rather to make it seem as if there were no problems. Mind you, the clientele were savvy enough to tell the difference, for the most part -- i.e., they could recognize good service even when it didn't walk up and slap them in the face. But then that was the point.
Now the service I provided at the country club in itself differed markedly between when I was doing poolside service and when I was black-tie waitstaff or working a special event. This was dictated by where and what I was doing, how much background support I had, how many tables assigned and where, priorities of the kitchen, etc.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And that's when waiters are being kind. I've seen the horror stories about what can be done to food between the kitchen and the table for problem customers.
Any system propped up by the implicit blackmail in such stories needs to be changed.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'll grant you #1, #3 and #6 (although will point out that refilling paid drinks is not an optional component of service). #2's not particularly useful, but managers will insist on it. Getting the food out quickly and hounding the kitchen are actually as beneficial to the server as to the customer, and so a server who neglects to do either is only hurting himself.
But it's also worth noting that, in general, only the best servers manage to do #3 and #6 anyway, and most servers of that quality wind up working in places where someone else does #1 for them (often for a tiny share of the final tip).
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I'm giving them what they're paying for. I don't see how that's immature.
I've been told "I'm sorry, but I don't see prompt service as being something worthwhile for me to pay extra for" so I respond with "Okay, then I'll give you the level of service you've shown me you're willing to pay for."
The thing is, most servers make a fair compensation from most customers. Bad tippers are outliers and not usually the norm (depending on area). So, when someone deviates from the norm of the social contract in terms of tipping, it is only understandable that the server would respond with commensurate deviation.
Whether or not you think it's "right" or "fair", leaving no tip is insulting and degrading, and you shouldn't be surprised when you trigger negative behavior in response.
You can call them immature for not playing step and fetchit to a low/no-tipping customer, but I can call you naive for expecting them to.
And it's odd, but I get the distinct feeling (and I may be pulling this out of the air) that Tom is a good tipper in practice. I think he rarely gets what he considers "bad" service, and therefore rarely tips below a standard amount (I'm going to put him on 18% or so, but I could be wrong). It's my impression that the "I shouldn't have to tip" stance is rhetorical in nature and is more of a theoretical/intellectual exercise. I'm pretty confident that if I waited on him ever, I'd have gotten 18-20% or so.
Of course, I could be totally off base.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Whether or not you think it's "right" or "fair", leaving no tip is insulting and degrading
And this is precisely the perception that needs to change. If you believe that being underpaid for quality service is degrading, why not confront your employer about his willingness to underpay you for providing quality service? Why insult the customer, whose contract is with your employer and not you?
Do you tip the guy giving you an oil change?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:And yet, consider: this is not going to get that employee a raise. It might at best be considered when it's time for a promotion. Without also tipping an extra amount, the time you spend talking to that employee's manager actually winds up costing the restaurant money for no net benefit to the employee. [/QB]
That was not my experience as an employee, and it has not been my experience as a customer. (Again, I'm not saying it is necessary to do this, just relating my own policy and experience with where I go.) About 1 out of 5 times I hear back from the manager, often with specific information about how that affects this employee (and with a free appetizer or drink comp card, but that is beside the point). The managers have always (although they could well have been lying! ) told me to my face that it was a relief and a pleasure to field a compliment rather than a criticism, as usually they only got the latter. (Mind you, I don't ask for the manager at busy times, only if things seem fairly slow and I have the time.) And then I've had waitstaff tell me specifically that it was helpful when they recognized me again (sometimes weeks later, but usually where I was a semi-regular at the time) -- of course, they too could have been lying, I suppose.
I think the real benefit is just the emotional boost of being appreciated for doing good work in an underappreciated market. And I like knowing there is something good in the waitstaffer's file to balance out a possible complaint from a jerk that shouldn't be there.
I don't do this a lot, though. For me, this is for service above and beyond, but it's pretty consistently always for service that is above and beyond. Many times, though, I don't want the responsibility for being a guest/client, so I will hang out at a cafe or cook at home. It's also so much cheaper and healthier.
[ September 16, 2006, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: #2's not particularly useful, but managers will insist on it. Getting the food out quickly and hounding the kitchen are actually as beneficial to the server as to the customer, and so a server who neglects to do either is only hurting himself.
This wasn't my experience, but I understand that YMMV. When we hit crunch times, it would have been a great relief to have clear prioritization in my mind for my tables.
----
Edited to add:
quote:And it's odd, but I get the distinct feeling (and I may be pulling this out of the air) that Tom is a good tipper in practice. I think he rarely gets what he considers "bad" service, and therefore rarely tips below a standard amount (I'm going to put him on 18% or so, but I could be wrong). It's my impression that the "I shouldn't have to tip" stance is rhetorical in nature and is more of a theoretical/intellectual exercise. I'm pretty confident that if I waited on him ever, I'd have gotten 18-20% or so.
I've had the pleasure of dining out with Tom & his family many times, and I would certainly agree with you.
I don't like the current system, by the way, regardless of the fact that I tip well. I still think that waitstaff should be paid at least minimum wage up front, and that the system should be such that gratuities are a nice gravy but not expected.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm also not convinced that the "social contract" being spoken of here is being accurately described. It would be just as valid to say that the tipping convention exists so that the average salary of a server works out high enough that people want to be servers under those terms while allowing customers to contribute what they think fair to this effort.
For example, when complaining about Atlanta's low tipping, why don't you characterize it as the local variation of this social contract?
(For the record, I'm an excellent tipper - 20% rounded up to make the amount even is about as low as I go, barring never getting any water refills. It's gone much higher.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Even without a raise, managers can reward servers every time they make up a schedule.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:And this is precisely the perception that needs to change. If you believe that being underpaid for quality service is degrading, why not confront your employer about his willingness to underpay you for providing quality service? Why insult the customer, whose contract is with your employer and not you?
Because it works?
Say I have three tables. Table A is a regular who gives a good tip (20%) ordinarily. Table B is a repeat customer who's given low tips (under 10% three times). Table C is a new customer.
Table C will get the lion's share of my attention. Table A will get most of my remaining attention. Table B will get any attention I can spare to get out the basics of rudimentary service (take order, bring food, check once, bring check).
Table C is a variable. I always give my best service to variables, because they could be that middle group who actually tips according to service.
Table A is consistant, and I try to do as much as I can for them. They are people I want to keep coming back - and people who I want telling their friends about the restaurant.
Table B is consistant in the opposite sense. They detract from the value of my tables, and they won't give a good tip even with great service (because I know the first time I ever saw them I went above and beyond, and likely the second time, too).
As a server, my time was valuable. I wanted to spend it in places that were profitable. That's common sense.
To take it to another level, as a server you don't want bad tippers coming back. You want those seats filled with average or better tippers (the majority of the population). If a bad tipper has a bad experience, maybe they'll choose a different restaurant next time. If they do, and give up on a store completely, all servers' profits increase.
This is assuming, of course, that they tip poorly regardless of service. These people exist, and it is to the server's benefit if they stopped eating out entirely.
quote:Do you tip the guy giving you an oil change?
Having worked at in the service department of a Saturn during college, I know full well what they get for oil changes. If you're going to compare mechanic's wages to server's wages, I don't think we can have any sort of meaningful conversation on the topic.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I think the real benefit is just the emotional boost of being appreciated for doing good work in an underappreciated market.
But, then, why not just leave out the tip entirely and thank the server for a job well done?
------
quote: Say I have three tables. Table A is a regular who gives a good tip (20%) ordinarily. Table B is a repeat customer who's given low tips (under 10% three times). Table C is a new customer.
Now imagine that you are working at a hypothetical restaurant which does not permit tips. Waiting all three of these tables will net you the same amount of money. How does your service change?
quote:If you're going to compare mechanic's wages to server's wages, I don't think we can have any sort of meaningful conversation on the topic.
Ah. So you concede that tipping constitutes charity?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:
quote: I think the real benefit is just the emotional boost of being appreciated for doing good work in an underappreciated market.
But, then, why not just leave out the tip entirely and thank the server for a job well done?
I am a woman of drama and surprises. I like the cumulative effect. Plus one feeds the belly, the other feeds the soul -- and rarely the two shall mix.
--
Edited to clear up formatting and add:
me: speak to waiter directly + make known to management = waiter: mainly psychological boost, maybe improve workplace environment cumulatively (as per Dagonee above, also via being willing to cut a good waiter some slack on a bad day, general "my boss is glad to see me because I am so guuuud", etc)
me: bigger tip = waiter: makes life easier financially (even if only a little bit), e.g., can get him/herself something they don't have to cook on way home from work -> don't have to do dishes tonight after long shift -> more time to spend on college essay, etc. and also less likely to burn self on stove because too tired + psychological boost too
---
I carry my own set of Sara scales in my head to keep track of whether I am making the universe on par a better or worse place, in my judgment. It is a tedious yet awesome responsibility, thus (in part) the general air of distraction. I'm trying not to die in one of the downswings, and I'm trying to make the general trend upwards just in case.
Life is so complicated.
[ September 16, 2006, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In an ideal world, though, the financial benefit of a big tip could be achieved more efficiently (and in a long-term, amplified way) by complimenting the employee to the manager, eventually resulting in a salary increase for the employee.
Tipping as a mechanism makes this scenario impossible.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: I've let bad tippers sit before. The first two or three times I saw them, they left less than 10%, so the next times I saw them I didn't bother rushing. They got frustrated, kept trying to get my attention, and I smiled and said I'd be right with them, then promptly did other work I needed to do. By the end of the night, they're frustrated, didn't have a good experience, and.... left the same bad tip they left the first two times with good service.
Letting a customer "sit" does not always have to do with knowledge of their tipping history. I've been made to sit in restaurants where I have never been before (therefore, the waitstaff do not know how I tip) while parties who were seated after me get served. My policy is that if those who were seated after me get initial service before I do...menus, drinks...I walk out of the restaurant. I've done that a few times.
I've noticed that being made to sit often correlates with the makeup of the party, that parties of exclusively women often get slower, shoddier service than parties containing all men or mixed men and women. Perhaps it is assumed that men tip better than women do. I'm afraid that waitstaff that makes that assumption and provides variable service based on it are not doing their job correctly, and might well be losing business for themselves and their bosses. And more than just my business, because I am a great believer in word of mouth and will tell my friends if I got bad service at a restaurant.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
This quote from "Waiting" basically sums things up when it comes to tipping, I think.
quote:She broke the CARDINAL rule...dont f*** with the people who handle your food!
Posted by Ryoko (Member # 4947) on :
What I hate about tipping is the inherent unfairness of it.
Given the same circumstances, an attractive waiter/waitress will always get more than un-attractive waiter/waitress.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
I don't go out to dinner anymore because I'd hate to leave my firstborn as a tip.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I just leave a big nugget of gold on the table for good servers and a dead possum for the bad ones.
Posted by OSTY (Member # 1480) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Wow, Osty. There so much I take exception to in your post that I don't know where to start.
First the idea of applied risk. Either you haven't read anything anyone's said about a social contract and acting contrary to reasonable social expectations, or you've ignored it. Either way, I'm not repeating it here. Scroll back.
Second, don't compare being a substitute teacher to being a server. I've done both for about equal parts of my life (almost two years of each), and they are in no way similar, or have anything close to the same amount of financial risk.
A substitute teacher's pay is not based on quality of service, at all (though it's a testament to you doing your job properly that you think it is, so I'll commend you on a job well done). For every sub who actually does their job and follows the lesson plans, there's another who sits in the room with a newspaper ignoring the lesson plans completely and getting the same pay. If you're registered in a large school district, they'll need people almost every day - if you're not, then you can register in several school districts and accept or decline jobs as you like.
Also, no matter what happens in the classroom to make life more difficult (lack of lesson plans, student behavior, assemblies, fire drills, bomb scares, etc), you still make the same wage. The only "applied risk" a sub has is school cancellation, due to weather for instance.
quote:That being said, I also would like to approach the fact of the statement of so many things being out of the control of the wait staff. That is totally false.
This makes me think more that it wasn't that you didn't read the social contract comments, but ignored them. Because you also seem to be ignoring (actually directly contradicting) the comments from hatrackers who wait tables (and have waited tables) with direct experience telling you otherwise.
Are you calling us all liars, or do you think you somehow know better than people who have actually done the job?
First let me say it is an implied risk. The wait staff took the job knowing the salary and the implied assumption that they would make at least minimum wage from tips. Any service person that does not believe this has their head stuck in the clouds. And I was not compairing being a substitute teacher directly to being a service person, but I was using it to clearly explain how implied risk works. But I will say, my work does depend on the job I do that day. Teacher here can request the substitute they get and often do, so the bad ones do not get work and eventually fall off the system. Just as tipping should work for bad servers, they won't make enough off their tips and will stop working as a server.
Finally, not only have I worked as a server and a delivery person. I know what it is like to grow up depending on my mother making tips. However, my mothers outlook on it was amazingly different. She know some of those people who left a quarter on here table for $10.00 service thought they were tipping very high. She was happy for every little cent she got to put into her tip jar because she knew she earned it by doing good service. She taught that to me and when I became a server, I felt the same way.
So be a little careful before you assume when you read something you know exactly what you read. Attacking me for not knowing the service industry was not the right move flyingcow, because to me when you say I come from a long line of something, it means you are experienced in that line too other wise you are the end of that long line!
Posted by OSTY (Member # 1480) on :
I would also like to take a moment to say that tipping is a social contract would be totally incorrect. Since a contract is upholdable by law, tipping can not be considered a social contract. Maybe a social expectation, but not a contract. I would love to see the service people get laughed out of court for suing someone for not tipping them.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
From Dictionary.com
quote:Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source Main Entry: so·cial contract Function: noun : an actual or hypothetical agreement among individuals forming an organized society or between the community and the ruler that defines and limits the rights and duties of each
A social contract is not necessarily enforcable by law.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Do you tip the guy giving you an oil change?
No but then, most mechanics make better than minimum wage. In fact, many mechanics make much better than minimum wage.
I do, however, tip: 1)Cab Drivers 2)Bell Hops 3)Movers 4)The Newspaper Guy 5)My Postal Carrier (at Christmas) 6)Various and sundry delivery type people
There are probably more, but I'm sick and I'm having trouble thinking.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:That being said, I also would like to approach the fact of the statement of so many things being out of the control of the wait staff. That is totally false.
quote:Finally, not only have I worked as a server and a delivery person.
So, having worked as a server, you also say that it is "totally false" that many things are out of the control of the waitstaff?
I'm curious in what environment you worked that 100% of all things that happened in the restaurant to negatively impact a customer's experience were direclty controlled by the server.
quote:So be a little careful before you assume when you read something you know exactly what you read.
I'd take a little of your own advice. Ask yourself where in your post you ever mentioned anything about working as a server, and read your own comments to see they are all from a customer's perspective.
quote: Attacking me for not knowing the service industry was not the right move flyingcow
When you directly contradict my own personal experience, as well as the personal experience of others who wait tables on this board, I certainly will question your knowledge of the service industry.
Especially when you make comments like food was too cold because it sat too long - which is actually the opposite of reality in most larger establishments. Food ordinarily gets too hot and dried out if it sits too long, because it's sitting in the server window under heat lamps.
If two astronomers are talking, and one mentions the planet Gurgleblat, the other is certainly going to question the first's experience and credentials.
quote:And I was not compairing being a substitute teacher directly to being a service person, but I was using it to clearly explain how implied risk works.
Comparing them at all, directly or indirectly, is about as absurd as Tom's comparison between servers and mechanics. You might as well compare a union carpenter with a street performer.
quote:But I will say, my work does depend on the job I do that day.
I'm curious where you work that subs are in such abundant supply that a given teacher can always get the person they ask for and that there are always enough subs to go around.
In my experience (two years as a sub, and three years as a full time teacher) good subs are as rare as hen's teeth, and subs in general are always in short supply. Teachers cover absent coworkers' classes on their off periods almost as often as there's an actual sub available.
For a sub to find work in my area, they need 60 credits, a clean criminal record, and a pulse. Barring a lack of one of those three things, they'll make their guaranteed per diem even if they just hand out word searches in every class while doing a crossword puzzle.
Granted, your area may not suffer from these problems. I'm curious, though, where that area is.
I'm also curious, as mentioned above, what sort of dining environment you served in that deviated so far from the environments others on this board have served in.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:as absurd as Tom's comparison between servers and mechanics.
You keep saying that it's absurd. I don't see why it is.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:No but then, most mechanics make better than minimum wage.
Like I said: charity. If you tip servers because they don't make enough money, if the distinction between servers and mechanics is that mechanics are paid more than minimum wage already, tipping is charity.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
It hasn't been mentioned at all in this thread, so i'm guessing what i heard was only a rumor; that is, that servers out in california ARE paid minimum wage. I was told this by a number of people over the last couple of years....not true?
Posted by OSTY (Member # 1480) on :
1. I worked in a dinner that was individual ran, not warming lights in the kitchen. An order came up you grabbed it and got it out or it did not. But my point about the plate, if the place was cold there server knew the food was cold and they are in control of that.
Servers are in control of what happens if they know how to do their job flying cow. I often told the chef I would not serve something because it did not look right or was not satisfactory to be taken to the floor. I never said that things were in %100 control of the server, but I said a server has more control that you are leaving this board to think. If you don't then your resturant experience is different that mine. Sorry but I am sure different places run differently, or maybe I could read people better when I was waiting. I dunno.
2. I am not comparing the job between what a waitress does and a substitute teacher. I am explaining implied risk. Both jobs are infact taking in an implied risk. If you do not believe that wait staffing is an applied risk, then you were not aware of the job when you took it. Because if someone offers you 2.30 and hour, one would say but that is not minimum wage. But wait people do not, they go yeah but I will be getting tips. They take on the risk that they will be getting tips. And mine is a larger risk than that of a wait staff. If that phone doesn't ring, I don't work and I get no money. If wait staff are scheduled to work and do not make 8% of the gross reciepts from the restaurant in tips, the restaurant is required to make the difference up. (That is IRS law). That is not 8% of that wait person's clients. That is 8% of the entire gross take of the restaurant that shift.
I love the arguement that Tom brings up about the mechanic because everybodies reply is I know how much they make. Well then shouldn't you tip the Walmart worker? They make minimum wage. Where as most resturant workers I know, make $8-9 an hour with their tips even when they have to deal with bad tippers.
And yes, where I live there is an abudance of subs. On average, %15 of the subs fall off the list every year because they do not get enough work. So if you are not doing a good job, you more than likely will not work. I do not know a sub on the list that can afford to sit at a desk and read the paper or do puzzles.
I do love the statement of the waiter who went to the people place of work and harrassed them, because to me that shows that that waiter was unknowledged about his job. If he recieved no tips that night, by Federal law he is required to receive 8% of the gross income the restaurant made that night from the restaurant. And I as an employee of that business would have had the cops called and him arrested for harassment. That waiter had no right to go and harass those people. It may have felt good, but it was still legally wrong. What those in the resturant did, was just ethically wrong.
But my argument is not against tipping. If you go back and read the posts, you will see I said I tip. But for it to be a tip, I must decide what I will tip. Once that power is taken from me it is no longer gratuity. That is my problem with any resturant adding a 20% gratuity onto a bill.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Restaurateurs said they were particularly disappointed that the minimum wage jump would mainly help sometimes well-paid waiters rather than hourly kitchen workers, who generally earn wages that are above the minimum. The California Restaurant Assn. had advocated that hourly wages be frozen at $6.75 for the 400,000 tipped employees, who earn on average $25 to $35 an hour in tips, said association President Jot Condie.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Leonide: It hasn't been mentioned at all in this thread, so i'm guessing what i heard was only a rumor; that is, that servers out in california ARE paid minimum wage. I was told this by a number of people over the last couple of years....not true?
I've been mentioning it. Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
No time at the moment to post more, but:
quote:I do love the statement of the waiter who went to the people place of work and harrassed them, because to me that shows that that waiter was unknowledged about his job. If he recieved no tips that night, by Federal law he is required to receive 8% of the gross income the restaurant made that night from the restaurant.
Not at all true. As long as his weekly wage came out to higher than 8%, the restaurant needs to do nothing. It's not on a night by night basis. That's like telling a restaurant "I didn't get a table this hour, so you need to pay me my extra $3".
quote:Servers are in control of what happens if they know how to do their job flying cow.
I'm glad you can control the weather and whether outside sections are open, and whether there is a long wait for a seat, or whether the restaurant is very loud or if there's a crying child at the next table, or whether a person gets sat in a section near the bathroom, or whether someone gets sat in a section near a leaky roof when all other tables are filled, or whether the chef puts salt in a dish with a request of no salt clearly written, or whether the bartender puts Smirnoff in a drink intsead of Grey Goose (or Razmatazz instead of Chambord).
I'm glad you can control getting four parties sat all at once and can still give each the same service you would normally, and that you can taste all the drinks before you give them to your tables so you can make sure they're made properly. I'm glad you can control the speed food comes out of the kitchen when the restaurant is slammed, and that you never have to wait for a bartender with a backlog of drink orders.
I'm further glad the computer order taking system doesn't ever go down, or that the printers in the kitchen run out of paper, or that the credit card machine jams or runs out of paper, or that tickets printed off the machine don't get stuck together or lost in the kitchen.
I'm certainly glad all of these factors have always been under your control. Or do you think that they are just so rare as to be negligible?
I could be wrong, but it sounds like you've worked in a very small establishment where one server (or two) run a small room. That is a very, ver different world than a large restaurant with 15-20 servers, 2-3 food runners, several kitchen stations, and a computer system designed to allow them all to communicate.
And further, I've never said that nothing is within the server's control. I was hoping to get people to think about why a certain dining experience was less than expected (and whether or not such factors were within or without the server's control) before deciding on tip.
[Can't write any more now, because I have to run out. I'll try to post more later, specifically to address the "all jobs should be treated the same way, mechanic or server or otherwise" line of thinking)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's also worth pointing out that, given the whole list of things out of the server's control, tipping a server to guarantee a pleasant experience seems to be an impractical option.
Posted by OSTY (Member # 1480) on :
1. You stated, that I must tip a waiter/waitress because I know they are not making enough money. Yet, I know if nobody tipped in a restaurant at all, that Wait person will still earn 8% of the restaurants gross income for that pay period. So your argument stands no ground. Also, if your argument is that a wait person does not make minimum wage, why should I be force to tip more than $5.15. I would have paid that person the minimum wage for the hour I was in that restaurant. Again I state, I know that the person in Wal-mart is only making minimum wage, so I should have to tip them to make up the difference in their salary too. But wait, a doctor makes more then I do so they should have to tip me to make that even out. If tipping was about standards of pay, then a tip would not be standardized as a percentage but rather a straight amount.
2. I again state, I know that servers are not 100% in control of everything, but servers have more control than what you are leading this board believe. Your stament of what you have control over basically states all you can control is that the food is taken to the table. I keep in mind what is in the servers control when I tip, I agree everyone should.
3. A tip (gratuity) is no longer a tip when it is forced, it is a service charge. (The main argument of this topic. See the opening statement and article!)
4. It is funny that anywhere I search the words tip or gratuity, it is a gift.
MSN Encarta: gratuity - money given in appreciation: a small gift, usually of money, given to somebody such as a waiter as thanks for service given
Dictionary.com: 1. a gift of money, over and above payment due for service, as to a waiter or bellhop; tip. 2. something given without claim or demand
So I would say somewhere, you expectation of a tip got skewed to think that it was granted to you. To me a gift is not a requirement. Otherwise I am out many required gifts over my lifetime and I guess I should just start demanding those people give them to me!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Forgive me, I skipped a couple pages (this thread has gotten away from me a bit).
Tom -
Barring your serverless restaurant idea, what's your solution to end tipping? Raise food prices and pay servers a fair wage? I'm not knocking the idea, just attempting to clarify.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: ... 400,000 tipped employees, who earn on average $25 to $35 an hour in tips...
[/QUOTE]
So I guess the arguments that our servers deserve tips because they are badly paid are a bit unfounded. A much better target for our charity (at least in North America) would seem to be people who make minimum wage (with no tips) than servers.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Maybe in CALIFORNIA.
Not the entire country.
Servers make $2.65 where I work, not $6.75. Things are too different on a state by state basis for data like that to be useful in a broad discussion on the subject, imo.
And everything is more expensive in California. Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I believe this thread has reached the tipping point.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
^ Oy. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: I believe this thread has reached the tipping point.
Annnnd Shigosei wins the thread.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:And everything is more expensive in California.
Yes; consider that a good starting point for an actual living wage for, say, a single mom with a kid who has a mother willing to watch the kid for free while she works so she doesn't have to pay for childcare, just food, rent, gas, clothes, etc., is probably, oh, about $13-$14/hour.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Osty first, then Tom second.
Osty:
quote:1. You stated, that I must tip a waiter/waitress because I know they are not making enough money.
No, I'm not saying you must do anything. Before you make comments criticizing reading comprehension ("So be a little careful before you assume when you read something you know exactly what you read.") you might want to pay closer attention.
I'm not advocating a mandatory tip. In fact, I've said on several occasions in this thread that you're not required to tip at all. However, the consequences of that are possibly being labeled as a "jerk" (or far worse). Refusing to tip is not a socially considerate thing to do, and is in fact behavior that deviates significantly from the norm. It is taken by many servers as an insult and, to some, worthy of retaliation. "Bad tipping" such as less than 10% is also a departure from the norm and also not socially considerate.
quote:Yet, I know if nobody tipped in a restaurant at all, that Wait person will still earn 8% of the restaurants gross income for that pay period. So your argument stands no ground.
You don't seem to understand this law. The waitperson may earn 8% of their total sales, but not 8% of the restaurant's gross income. I'm also not clear what argument stands no ground because of this statement. Do you mean my argument that low/no tipping is inconsiderate and deviating from social norms (a sort of social contract)? Or my argument that you shouldn't blame your servers for things that are beyond their control?
Find me what argument you're trying to refute, please, because I don't think I ever said that servers don't make enough money. I made plenty of money serving - but I still feel that those who left low/no tips are selfish and/or ignorant.
quote:Also, if your argument is that a wait person does not make minimum wage, why should I be force to tip more than $5.15. I would have paid that person the minimum wage for the hour I was in that restaurant.
Servers get paid a lower-than-minimum wage with the understanding that tips will cover more than the difference. Not the hope, but the understanding. If it was a hope, such as "I hope I win the lottery", then no one would do it. It's an understanding that the average server makes better than minimum wage and makes an average of 15% or so in tips.
Servers don't do a job with that much work and stress for minimum wage. The understanding of the job, which I don't think is arguable in the United States, is that you will make a small wage and have an average (15% or so) amount of tips. Based on that understanding, people take the job.
And quite honestly, as I'm sure you know from your experience, most servers make an average of 15% or more. I don't think I've ever argued that they don't, or that they're underpaid (edit: that is, after tips are included). I have argued that given an average/expected quality of service, customers that tip above are considered generous, those who tip below are considered cheap - and that unless the service was truly atrocious, you should at least leave something.
quote:Again I state, I know that the person in Wal-mart is only making minimum wage, so I should have to tip them to make up the difference in their salary too. But wait, a doctor makes more then I do so they should have to tip me to make that even out. If tipping was about standards of pay, then a tip would not be standardized as a percentage but rather a straight amount.
Never said it was. It's about a social understanding that when you walk into a restaurant and sit down at a table, you are expected to leave some sort of tip/compensation for the server's efforts. If you're arguing that that is not standard social understanding, then you're telling me that's not what usually happens 99/100 times or more.
When you walk into Walmart, you have a different set of expectations (that is, if you walk into Walmart at all, which I don't, but that's a whole different thread). When you go to the doctor, you have a different set of expectations. I still need to get into that in my response to Tom, so I'm not going to address it here yet.
quote:2. I again state, I know that servers are not 100% in control of everything, but servers have more control than what you are leading this board believe. Your stament of what you have control over basically states all you can control is that the food is taken to the table. I keep in mind what is in the servers control when I tip, I agree everyone should.
Your last sentence is spot on, and all I'm trying to say. Keep in mind what is in the server's control when you tip. For instance, if you are sat too close to the noisy tables near the bar? Blame your host, not your server.
The larger the restaurant, the more control is taken from the individual server's hands. In a small environment where there is a single chef and you work both bar and tables and the patrons seat themselves, you have a *lot* of control over the environment. In this situation, most of what goes wrong short of the food's quality itself is the server's responsibility.
However, in a larger environment with 15-20 servers on duty, four or more chefs, three hosts, two floor managers, three bartenders, and several runners, bussers, and expediters, more and more is taken from the server's control. If you're not making the drinks yourself, you have to trust in your bartender. If you're not bussing the tables yourself, you have to trust in your bussers. If you're not running the food yourself, you have to trust in your food runners.
Normally in these environments, there are also computer systems to take into consideration and all the technical problems that come along with them.
Even so, I'd say 95% of the time things go great and you get at least an average experience. However, when the system breaks down, there are many more links in the chain that could be responsible in a larger restaurant than in a small one.
In a large restaurant, the service a waiter provides a table is affected in large part by his support staff's job performance. In a small restaurant, a waiter has few if any support staff that affect his service quality.
quote:3. A tip (gratuity) is no longer a tip when it is forced, it is a service charge. (The main argument of this topic. See the opening statement and article!)
I agree with the first sentence, but your parenthetical is way off.
I posted the first post and started this thread, and nowhere in that post did I argue that all restaurants should adopt a 20% forced gratuity. I simply posted an article I found interesting and asked for the board's opinion. In fact, I said I didn't think I would support such a move in my second post and offered the alternative of placing info cards on tables.
So, it's not the main argument of this topic, especially not when you reference the opening statement as proof that it is.
Again, throwing reading comprehension stones doesn't suit your glass house.
quote:4. It is funny that anywhere I search the words tip or gratuity, it is a gift.... So I would say somewhere, you expectation of a tip got skewed to think that it was granted to you.
See the Santa comparison.
Nowhere is it necessary or required that a person dressed up in a Santa suit with a bag full of wrapped gifts visiting an orphanage *has* to give out any gifts. It's not required. As you say, they're gifts after all.
However, by his actions, he has set up an expectation. By acting counter to that expectation, he is being at best inconsiderate and at worst being a word I can't say on a family forum.
Based on a massive, nonquantifiable amount of examples, customers in restaurants in the USA leave tips. It has become custom and common practice - though it is by no means mandatory. By the weight of such a massive amount of previous example events, customers who sit down at a table in a restaurant and order food are expected to follow suit.
Pavlov learned that past experience sets up future expectation. It's a natural process. More and more experience that aligns with expectation reinforces that expectation.
When you introduce yourself to someone, they acknowledge you in some way - it's an expectation based on past experience that they will. When they ignore you completely and give no response, you note their deviation from social norms and likely label them as rude or inconsiderate.
Sitting in a restaurant sets up a social expectation that you are well aware of. Acting counter to that expecttion will likely label you as rude or inconsiderate.
I don't see how that's so hard to grasp.
I'll get to Tom in my next post. Spent way too long on this one this morning and need to do some work.
I promise it is coming, though!
(And, based on previous experience, you are perfectly within your rights to expect a reply, and to think me inconsiderate if I don't give one.)
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Okay, Tom, to your comment:
quote:Do you tip the guy giving you an oil change?
To which I replied:
quote:If you're going to compare mechanic's wages to server's wages, I don't think we can have any sort of meaningful conversation on the topic.
To which you replied:
quote:Ah. So you concede that tipping constitutes charity?
Not quite sure the connection there. Because I understand the expectations of service v. compensation of a waiter and the expectations of service v. compensation for a mechanic, I feel that tipping constitutes charity?
Maybe we have a different definition of charity. In my mind, charity is money you give to the helpless or poor, expecting nothing in return. It's money you give to someone who did nothing for you who you don't expect to do anything for you out of the goodness of your heart.
You can give a homeless person money as charity, or you can donate money to cancer research as charity. You can give a person who's gone bankrupt money to get back on their feet, or you can buy computers for a school district without the funds to do it themselves.
Maybe here's a big distinction in my mind between "charity" and "gratuity/tip". One is given for the reason of being nice, the other is given as a response to service. I think the term "gratuity" is inaptly named even, feeling it's more of a compensation than a gift, in any event.
Admittedly, this thinking may be nonstandard. I don't know.
The following may better illustrate the distinction in my mind between what is charity and what is not. Take two individuals:
Person A stands on a street corner with a sign asking for money and his hat upturned on the street in front of him.
Person B stands on a street corner with a trumpet playing jazz tunes with his trumpet case open on the street in front of him.
Conceding that this may be a completely nonstandard point of view on this topic, I feel giving money to Person A is charity while giving money to Person B is (normally) not.
Why?
Because Person B is performing a service, admittedly unasked for, and asking those who appreciate that service to compensate him in some monetary way.
Now, some people will ignore him and walk on by. That's fair. Some people will stand around and listen, maybe asking for a special request, and will toss some money in his case for his efforts. That's also fair. Some people will see him no different than the panhandler and give money out of charity/pity/sympathy. He's not going to give it back because of this intent, certainly, though he has no way of knowing if they appreciated the music or just took pity on him. And finally, some people will stand and listen, perhaps asking for a request, and then walk away leaving nothing.
In my possibly nonstandard opinion, even though that last group has no obligation at all to provide any money for the service they enjoyed, they should have contributed at least some small something as compensation/payment for the musician's efforts.
They stopped, they enjoyed the performance, and then they moved on. They're well within their rights to do so and probably thought "hey, free entertainment" before leaving the musician with nothing. It seems somewhat selfish to me, that act.
The expectations for Person A and Person B are different, and I'd imagine Person B playing his trumpet would expect to receive more than Person A doing nothing, at least in the long run. I also would think Person B would have the right to be frustrated if he drew a big crowd all night long, so much so that there was a ring three people deep, and then had no money at all to show for it at the end of the night. All those people listened and enjoyed, but none thought it was worth any money?
Of course, this is a more extreme example that's likely very fuzzy in terms of what the social expectations are. I think there is a weak social contract that if you stand around and appreciate a performer, you should probably chip in at least a coin or two. Surely, the performer is expecting more compensation from those who stand around and listen than from those who walk by without stopping, which is logical (at least in my mind).
With regards to service, there's so much of a social expectation that "table service = tip" that, when asked what a standard tip is for standard service, most people would chirp out 15% by rote. Because this is so ingrained in our culture, with both patrons and servers having certain expectations ingrained in them regarding what the routine should be, it seems culturally deviant to receive standard or better service and leave a substandard (or no) tip.
Now, let's look at the comparison to the mechanic.
There is a different set of social expectations with regard to every profession. Mechanics tell you what they found to be wrong, explain the service they will be doing, then give a price. You then either accept, allowing them to perform service on your car and then paying the price, or decline, refusing to let them do service on your car and paying nothing.
The mechanic has two things to consider when setting the price: parts and service. How much are the parts worth, and how much is his time worth? Both of these come down to basic standards.
The parts cost is determined by the retailer of the part. If you buy it on your own, you may get a better price than if you buy it through the mechanic/service station. If you go to a junkyard, you may get it even cheaper.
The amount charged for service is based on time. The times for service are standard as well, with books listing the amount of time each and every service will take on each and every type of car. The only variable is the mechanic's hourly fee, which may vary from service station to service station.
Before the mechanic does service, he outlines the total cost - including both the parts and labor. A server does not have that option. The prices listed on the menu are for parts only, and the labor costs are effectively determined by the consumer after the fact.
A mandatory service charge would bring the server's line of work far more in line with a mechanic's. "You ordered $100 in food, and this restaurant's service charge is 18%. Your total bill will come to $118. Do you still want this food, or would you like to find another restaurant?"
While that would take the guessork/variance out of server salaries, I don't know if I agree with it. Maybe I'm just too much of an optimist that people can be considerate and adequately compensate their servers if educated regarding the way the system is set up.
The article that sparked this thread focused on a man who wanted to change the system to both take the variance out of server compensation and to take the gift-like nature of that compensation away.
I don't know if I agree with that, or at least agree to a 20% standard rate. I might agree with my tip timer idea, though, wherein the tip amount is clearly displayed and adjustable at certain intervals.
quote:Again I state, I know that the person in Wal-mart is only making minimum wage, so I should have to tip them to make up the difference in their salary too
Back to Osty's comment that ties in.
Every job has different expecatations. You expect that a fastfood employee gets an hourly compensation. You expect that a car salesman gets a commission of the price you pay. You expect a substitute teacher to get a per diem salary. You expect a website designer to get paid per job (and possibly for maintenance of that site over time). You expect a teacher to have a salaried contract that increases every year in increments.
You expect a server to get a small wage heavily supplemented by tips.
Going into the doctor, you are aware of the expectations and payment - mostly through your insurance. Going into a computer store, you are aware of the expectations and payment - you pay for a product, and perhaps a service plan or warranty. Going into a restaurant, you are aware of the expectations and payment - you pay for your food, and tip the server accordingly.
People who go into a hospital and expect to pay in gold coins are certainly far outside socially established norms. People who go into a restaurant and expect to pay for food only and leave no tip at all regardless of service are far outside socially established norms.
You don't tip a Walmart teller because that's not part of our societal norms - though you can do so if you wish. If you do, you will likely be looked on as generous (even if a bit weird). You went above social norms, thus generating perceptions of generosity.
If you don't tip a waitress after acceptable service, you fell short of social norms, thus generationg perceptions of stinginess.
It's not the job itself but the social expectations tied to interactions with those doing that job that govern behavior.
Which is why different countries have drastically different takes on tipping, server salaries, etc.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
This reminds me of Pippy Longstocking, she always paid for everything in gold coins that she got from her father who was a pirate?
Why didnt ANYBODY wonder why a little girl is walking around tossing gold bulleon at everyone?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I guess it's better than her walking around throwing chicken bouillon at everyone, ne?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You expect a server to get a small wage heavily supplemented by tips.
And, again, WHY should this be so? I keep expecting a Russian guy in a beret to start fiddling in the background.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Well, as to why it should be so, I don't think that's as important as the fact that it *is* so.
As to why it *is* so, I don't know.
But, at the moment, it is so, for better or for worse. It would take a lot to change the system.
The guy in the article is trying to do so, making a mandatory service charge included, much like a mechanic, I guess. People balked at having to pay a mandatory tip, and likely would if it were called a mandatory service charge, as well.
Tipping lower or not at all won't change the system either, it will just abuse the system. The restaurant makes the same money, the customer saves money, and the server loses money.
Boycotting restaurants won't change the system unless a massive portion of the population jumps on board, which I doubt they ever will for such a boycott.
As it is, the system is making everyone money, so it's not likely to change. Servers will be unhappy at the small minority of people who leave insultingly low tips, but for the most part they make the standard - which is why it's a standard, after all. (though the average has increased from 15% to closer to 18% in recent years).
But *should* it work this way? That's like saying *should* we still have the electoral college? There's not much you can do about it one way or the other.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: I guess it's better than her walking around throwing chicken bouillon at everyone, ne?
Indeed! Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But *should* it work this way? That's like saying *should* we still have the electoral college? There's not much you can do about it one way or the other.
I have to admit that this way of thinking is completely foreign to me. Why can't we get rid of the electoral college?
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I don't think the social contract is legitimate because clearly some people don't believe it exists. And if 99% of people understood and accepted this contract, then why are we even having this debate?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:I don't think the social contract is legitimate because clearly some people don't believe it exists.
Because some people don't believe a social norm exists doesn't illegitimize it.
There will always be deviants to the norm.
quote:And if 99% of people understood and accepted this contract, then why are we even having this debate?
To inform the 1%, perhaps?
Posted by OSTY (Member # 1480) on :
quote:Okay, Tom, to your comment:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you tip the guy giving you an oil change? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To which I replied:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you're going to compare mechanic's wages to server's wages, I don't think we can have any sort of meaningful conversation on the topic. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But right here you are basically saying that I should not tip a mechanic because of his salary and I should tip a server because of their salary. Hence my point on tipping just minimum wage.
quote: In reality, the point of a tip is to pay for your service as a separate expense from your food
Hear you tell me that tipping is to pay for my service, I do not know may who gets paid $15 an hour yet I am paying my server that.
quote: If you choose not to tip at all, you are essentially stealing the services/time of your server - like jumping out of a cab without paying.
This is alot different, I am not skipping out on my bill. There is no comparison here. It is closer to me not giving the neighbor a christmas present at christmas.
quote: The servers believe that they'll get *something*. It's very rare that you get stiffed entirely.
But see there is the flaw in the system, believe you should get something and being guarenteed you get something. There was a time in this nation where tipping was a gift left for service, but servers have now come to expect it so if you don't leave a tip you are a "jerk". Where as the opposite mentality should be in place, if anything is left the server should be thankful, no matter the amount. Because there is no legal binding agreement when a person walks into a restaurant that they will leave something. Just because it is expected or the social normal doesn't mean it must be done.
I do it because my mother did it because her mother did it, is not an excuse to force everyone to fit into your standards of what must be done.
quote: Far too many people who are "on a budget" go out to restaurants and shortchange their servers. It is not the server's fault that these people shouldn't be eating in a restaurant if they aren't prepared and able to compensate him for his service.
quote: While tipping is not a requirement by law, to give no tip (or to tip 10% or less) is either incredibly ignorant or incredibly selfish, and those that habitually do so should simply stop patronizing restaurants that use servers.
quote: No, it's not necessary to tip, but if you don't (and have any understanding of the system), you're a selfish freeloader.
As long as they can pay the bill for the food they ate there are no other requirements of eating in a restaurant. There maybe expectation from the server, but that is all they are. I expect a lot of things I do not get, it is part of life.
quote: You don't seem to understand this law. The waitperson may earn 8% of their total sales, but not 8% of the restaurant's gross income.
Directly for the IRS:
quote: As an employer, you must ensure that the total tip income reported to you during any pay period is, at a minimum, equal to 8% of your total receipts for that period.
In calculating 8% of total receipts, you do not include nonallocable receipts. Nonallocable receipts are defined as receipts for carry out sales and receipts with a service charge added of 10% or more.
I have also worked as an accountant and done taxes. I do know this law very well.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
Adding 20% to the bill and calling it a "mandatory gratuity" is a contradiction in terms and therefore just flat immoral. It's a *lie*.
Calling it a service charge is not as offensive, but it's still pretty worthless. If you're ordering a $9.95 dinner, why pay an additional $1.99 as a service charge? Why not just charge $11.95 for the meal?
After all, they don't figure that the costs of electricity to light the restaurant and add that to the bill as a "utilities charge." They don't add the cost of the dishwasher in there.
Adding extra charges is just a dishonest bait-and-switch tactic. They are putting one price on the menu and charging another.
If the tip is optional, then I have control over it. If it's a service charge, then I expect to be told the real price, not broken down into separate charges that I have to add up.
Can you imagine if the grocery store reduced prices by ten percent and then you went grocery shopping and when you rang up your purchases they added back in a 10% service charge? What is the purpose of that except to exploit people?
Having an optional tip is perhaps defensible. Having a service charge tacked on is not.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Adding extra charges is just a dishonest bait-and-switch tactic. They are putting one price on the menu and charging another.
If the tip is optional, then I have control over it. If it's a service charge, then I expect to be told the real price, not broken down into separate charges that I have to add up.
I don't think adding a line for the service charge to a bill is being dishonest at all. I work in a hotel catering department, and it is understood that all prices quoted are "plus plus." Plus service charge, plus tax. Despite the initial upset shown by some people here, it could become standard fare to have a service charge on all service industry bills.
On the bill the restaurant would tell you what the cost of the meal is, which would include all utilities, and on a seperate line tell you what the charge is for the labor. They would have a seperate line so that you would know what you are paying for; for the same reason there is a seperate line for the tax. I don't see any dishonesty there.
Another bonus to having a service charge added to the bill is that there would be no more talk of a person's income being "charity." If you take the word gratuity out, maybe people wouldn't have a problem with it being mandatory, because there would be no contradictions. The restaurant is merely telling you, "Based on what you've ordered, we are going to pay your server this amount of money. When added to the cost of your meal, you owe a total of this much money." This is an excellent idea.
[ September 18, 2006, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: vonk ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:And everything is more expensive in California.
Yes; consider that a good starting point for an actual living wage for, say, a single mom with a kid who has a mother willing to watch the kid for free while she works so she doesn't have to pay for childcare, just food, rent, gas, clothes, etc., is probably, oh, about $13-$14/hour.
How do you know that the server is a single mom with those attributes and if your argument is that I should give her(?) charity because she has it tough, does she actually have it any tougher than someone that actually does work at minimum wage?
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
just for reference purposes, you are all aware that most restaraunts already include gratuity in the bill for parties 6 or larger (generally 18%). Whether you agree with it or not, that is the reality of life at the moment.
if you want to argue that tipping should not be a social norm or "requirement" then you should also be arguing that server's wages should be increased to compensate (and as a result restaraunts would be forced to raise their prices). if suddenly everyone stopped tipping except for exceptional service, and then starting at 0% rather than 15, then a huge portion of the population would suddenly be taking a huge pay cut.
you also absolutely have to accept that different jobs are going to have different pay schemes. sometimes this is evidenced in perks or benefits or time off or salary or the possibility of gratuity. It is worth noting that when you go to places such as Walmart it is probably against company policy for an employee to accept a tip. for example: I used to work at Panera Bread Company and got payed a reasonable salary at the time (at least a bit above minimum wage in highschool) and at times I had to turn down tips from considerate people to whom I was bringing their drink or food. This is in recognition that the food establishment in which I worked was recognized to pay an adequate salary without the need for gratuity.
the system on which "sit-down" restaraunts in this country is based works differently. Servers are expecting to recieve some sort gratuity-based pay, else they would not accept such low wages. As an engineer I expect to be payed a fair salary wage and recieve good medical and other benefits as well as things like a 401k, payed time off etc... however, this generally means that I'm in a position to be required to work overtime without added pay etc... there are different expectations from field to field as to how compensation works.
to scholar: "I don't think the social contract is legitimate because clearly some people don't believe it exists" then I don't think the social contract that people shouldn't kill each other is legitimate because clearly some people don't believe it exists. namely murderers.
and if you want to try arguing that tipping isn't the law, then look at the quoted IRS numbers. While technically the 8% is not a required tip, if that wasn't being covered by the general populus in their normal tipping practices you could be sure that we'd see a rise in restaraunt costs in order to cover that 8% that they would be required to pay their employees... Covering it in the form of tips is a matter of social courtesy, and an allowance for the customer to directly input to the server's pay, rather than it all being filtered through the restaraunt itself.
If you don't think it's right to be held to this social norm of tipping in the range of 15% for sit-down restaraunt service then accept the fact that you will probably be viewed as a jerk. Just as if you decided that the social norm of holding the door for others and not spitting at people you don't like wasn't valid you would also be considered a jerk.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:But right here you are basically saying that I should not tip a mechanic because of his salary
A mechanic's wage expectation is guaranteed based on time worked, a server's wage expectation is not guaranteed but assumed.
Hence, a big difference, and not due to amount, but the expectations of service. For a mechanic, I pay for two things: parts and labor. For a server, I pay for food and tip for labor. There's a significant difference in the way their wages are calculated, and the way their jobs operate.
Comparing them is like comparing apples to oranges.
quote:It is closer to me not giving the neighbor a christmas present at christmas.
It's closer to you going to your neighbor's house, sitting with kids all night with a big bag of gifts, then walking out without giving them any. As I've said now probably five times, you're not required to give them anything. But if you act out the scenario just described, those kids have every right to think of you as a jerk.
quote:There was a time in this nation where tipping was a gift left for service
Operative word: was.
quote:servers have now come to expect it so if you don't leave a tip you are a "jerk". Where as the opposite mentality should be in place, if anything is left the server should be thankful, no matter the amount.
You and Tom with that "should" word. Let's talk about what "is" instead. You *will* be thought of as a jerk for walking out without leaving a tip, whether you feel you should be thought of that way or not. The server *has* an expectation of a tip based on massive amounts of prior experience, whether or not you feel they should or not.
quote:Just because it is expected or the social normal doesn't mean it must be done.
I'll make it a sixth time. No, it doesn't mean it must be done. But deviating from the social norm or social expectations will be noticed, either in a positive or negative way. You either deviate by giving more than standard(being considered generous) or you deviate by giving less than standard (being considered stingy or cheap or worse).
You don't *have* to do anything. Lemme repeat. You don't *have* to do anything. Once more for effect. You don't *have* to do anything.
At least as the system stands now.
But, your choices have social reprecussions, and choosing not to tip will create a negative social view of you from the perspective of the servers, whether you feel it *should* or not.
quote:As long as they can pay the bill for the food they ate there are no other requirements of eating in a restaurant. There maybe expectation from the server, but that is all they are.
More proof you don't get it. Once more. You don't *have* to do anything. No requirements. You're not *required* to do anything. You're free to do as you like.
They're free to think of you as a jerk or as a wonderful person, based on your actions.
quote:I expect a lot of things I do not get, it is part of life.
Bully for you. I expect my neighbor not to tear the plants out of my garden while I'm at work. If he does, does that mean I can't think of him as a jerk?
quote:I have also worked as an accountant and done taxes. I do know this law very well.
I preface this by saying I could be totally off base, but..
So far as I can tell, nothing you quoted there has anything to do with paying a server 8% of the restaurant's total receipts, as you said before. For such a thing to happen, if you had 13 servers, the restaurant would be paying out over 100% of its total receipts. Or did you mean to say 8% of the server's receipts? Because that's not stated in the law you just quoted.
Find me the passage where it says "if the server fails to report 8% in tips, you are required by law to pay the server the difference". I'm curious about that one.
Maybe it's there. I don't know.
Reading it more closely, these words stood out: "As an employer, you must ensure that the total tip income reported to you during any pay period is, at a minimum, equal to 8% of your total receipts for that period."
Is there a passage wherein it says the "individual tip income" reported must be at least 8% of "that individual server's total receipts"? Anything about the individual in there at all? Or is it the total tips of the entire restaurant v. the total receipts of the restaurant?
I don't know. You seem well versed in finance law, though. Please explain. Is there subsequent case law that further defines the text you quoted? Maybe that's where the guidelines for individuals come in.
quote:Calling it a service charge is not as offensive, but it's still pretty worthless. If you're ordering a $9.95 dinner, why pay an additional $1.99 as a service charge? Why not just charge $11.95 for the meal?
This is more the mechanic model. "Your food cost $50 and your service cost $7.50, for a total of $57.50." They would just charge the whole amount, but it would be broken down for you, much like a mechanic does, into parts and labor.
I don't think I like that setup, but it works for some of the finer dining restaurants like Per Se, it seems.
In my own experience, I very, very rarely added the 18% gratuity to large parties, because I was confident I'd get more than that - and I would. Other waiters swore by automatically added in gratuity for large parties.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
My point is that people are claiming that a tip is required because it is a social contract we have all agreed to. But, clearly not all of society agrees to this or else we would not be having the debate, and people wouldn't feel the need for forcing tips. I would need some proof that this is the social norm. The murderer example isn't valid because murder is against the law- tipping is not. I would agree that the holding doors is analgous because there is a debate on whether that is social norm as well. If I don't have my hands full, I do not expect people to hold a door open for me. If I did, I would have to consider a lot of people jerks.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:How do you know that the server is a single mom with those attributes and if your argument is that I should give her(?) charity because she has it tough, does she actually have it any tougher than someone that actually does work at minimum wage?
What? What are you talking about? I was just saying that I'm in favor of paying servers at least minimum wage because if they weren't paid minimum wage they'd have no hope of making it. I was just pointing out that an actual "living wage" in CA is much higher than in much of the country.
[ September 18, 2006, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: ketchupqueen ]
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Am I alone in thinking that this thread has gone on for 20% longer than it deserves?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Not everyone needs to agree to something to make it a social contract, scholar.
Let's take an example that's not illegal. How about riding with your high beams on in traffic. It's certainly not the norm to be driving with your high beams on all the time. It's also not the norm to do it when you are right behind someone. There are two possibilities. First, you are unaware that your high beams are on. Second, you are aware but you don't care enough about the driver in front of you to turn them off.
I'd say it's socially expected not to blind someone with your highbeams in traffic, though people do it all the time. They're either unaware or inconsiderate of others. They are violating expected norms of behavior, and the drivers in front of them are justified in being frustrated or thinking they are jerks.
Still, the person with their highbeams on didn't agree to the social contract of considerate driving practices. Does that mean it's not a social norm?
In the social contract that forms a system of government, does everyone agree to every aspect of it? Does that void it as a social contract?
quote:I would need some proof that this is the social norm.
This is easy to find. Ask the first 100 people you meet on a US street, "Is it common practice to tip a server in a restaurant?" Then go to 100 US restaurants and ask every server, "When you wait on a table, do you normally get a tip?"
Scholar, forgive me if I just haven't paid attention to other posts you've made in other threads, but are you originally from the US? I'm having a hard time believing that you could be from the US and honestly think it's not a social norm to tip in restaurants.
It's like thinking it's not a social norm for there to be fireworks on the Fourth of July.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: Am I alone in thinking that this thread has gone on for 20% longer than it deserves?
Cheapscate.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The funny thing is that I'm less likely to tip and tip well because of this thread.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Such a rebel, that mph.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Not really. I've always thought that tipping was pretty dumb. But this thread has brought into focus exactly how stupid a practice it really is.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
This thread makes my brain hurt. So much so that this morning I had dinner at a Chinese restaurant, and as a tip I left the keys to my house.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Cheapscate.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:The funny thing is that I'm less likely to tip and tip well because of this thread.
quote: I've always thought that tipping was pretty dumb. But this thread has brought into focus exactly how stupid a practice it really is.
I'm with mph.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
To each their own. I'm off to sleep, myself. This thread became very wearying, and got far longer than it ever should have.
I think I'll hold eros responsible. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
How is tipping being stupid, and protesting by jipping servers going to serve your aims mph?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In general, I object to itemized "service charges" as well, because traditionally those service charges are never included in the advertised price of the good or service. In an ideal world, prices WOULD be itemized, but only the final actual price would be advertised.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
mph, you are really skating on thin ice.
Posted by Mad Cap'n Morbo (Member # 5635) on :
Porter's been skating underwater for awhile on this issue. Er, Arrrr!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Not really. Only for two of his last few posts.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Did ye make him walk the plank, Cap'n?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Morbo, I read that as "Porter's been skating in his underwear" and ... well ... never mind.
---
Edited to add: Aaaaa-vast.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Not really. I've always thought that tipping was pretty dumb. But this thread has brought into focus exactly how stupid a practice it really is.
mph, the concept of tipping in general, and who deserves to get tips and who doesn't, may be dumb. But the reality is that people working jobs where the majority of their salary comes from tips make really low hourly wages. So regardless of whether tipping is a stupid practice, those people rely on it for sustinance. To get rid of tipping the restaurant would have to charge more for the food so they could pay the servers more. Thus negating any money you would have saved by not tipping. At least with tipping you are allowed to decide what kind of hourly wage your server receives based on how good they are at their job.
Also, i haven't read much of this thread, but I assume someone has mentioned how in Europe(not all of it) there really isn't tipping. Servers make a higher salary and have benefits and don't rely on tips to pay the bills. It's their job, like any other job.
Posted by Mad Cap'n Morbo (Member # 5635) on :
CT, ye've always been a scurvy wench! Get yer mind out of the scuppers!
Nay, ketchupqueen, I'd keel-haul 'em. The short haul, as Porter's a good lad at heart.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
*strikes up a rousing chorus of "What Shall We do With a Drunken Sailor?"*
Posted by Mad Cap'n Morbo (Member # 5635) on :
In me own case tonight, I best toddle off to me bunk as I've a skinful of Schnapps. Before I break character.
Aye, CT, ye've a vast dirty imagination. And Queen Anne, I'd take you hostage for a queen's ransom o' condiments iffen I was on your coast. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:To get rid of tipping the restaurant would have to charge more for the food so they could pay the servers more. Thus negating any money you would have saved by not tipping.
I don't think most people who think tipping are stupid think it's stupid because they can't afford to tip, or aren't willing to pay more for their food.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Though many people who tip poorly do so for those very reasons.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Certainly. Many people who tip well find the server sexually attractive, too.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Though many people who tip poorly do so for those very reasons.
AFAIK, that those aren't the reasons for anybody in this thread.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Oh, and Rivka:
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Also true, Tom.
People tip for all kinds of reasons, and don't tip for all kinds of reasons.
Some of the reasons make no sense, some of them do. People tip because they're in a good mood, or don't because they're in a bad mood. The weather can affect tip amount, even.
It's just those who refuse to tip as a rule, or who tip very low as a rule, are being inconsiderate, imo. Just as those who tip high as a rule are being generous.
I'd love it if people truly tipped based on service quality alone. Perhaps a 15% average, with poor service pushing that number lower and great service pushing that number higher. Then, at the end of every night a server could see either: I made 11%, what am I doing wrong? or I made 18%, I'm doing better than average!
As it is, the customer is a larger factor than service quality. Their mood, their attitudes toward tipping in general, their financial situation, etc. Great service does not necessarily equal great or even good tips, and awful service does not necessarily equal bad or even below averge tips.
Here are my best suggestions (within the current system):
- find an average you're comfortable with - 15% for sake of argument, because that's a widely accepted standard.
- eat at restaurants where an additional 13-18% to the cost of the meal is within your budget.
- Tip higher when the server adds to your restaurant experience, and tip lower when the server detracts from it - all while keeping in mind what is and is not within your server's power. More is within your server's control in a very small restaurant than in a very large one.
- If service is bad enough that you consider leaving no tip, talk to a manager and have the problem addressed.
- If you're a generous person by nature, your average might be higher - 18%, perhaps. If you're an ungenerous person by nature, your average might be lower - 13%, perhaps.
- Along with this, understand that servers will be more kindly disposed to the former than the later. Generosity is viewed as a positive social trait, after all, and its opposite is viewed as a negative one.
- Consider your own behavior when considering tip, as well. If you were abnormally messy, took an abnormally long time at your table, or were very complicated(i.e. many special requests and orders that the server happily addressed), keep that in mind when thinking about compensation.
- Nothing is mandated or required when considering tip - and no tip is required at all - but at least consider some of the points made in this list before settling on an amount.
Does any of that seem unreasonable?
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
This thread is frustrating to no end, and this shall be my last post in it. I just can't believe that there are people that will argue so vehemently against tipping. I was initally very suprised, and a little pleased, that there were inteligent people who support the practice of not tipping/tipping poorly. It was interesting to hear how they articulated why they felt the need to hurt other people. It isn't interesting anymore. It's just mean.
I'm going to be tipping my servers far more from now on, in an effort to make up for what they are loosing due to misplaced principles.
It doesn't matter that the restaurant should pay their servers more. Maybe they should, but they don't. What matters is that there is a huge population of servers in America that work very hard and deserve to be paid for it. Why not pay them? It has been said that the reason is not lack of funds, but presumably due to some principle. So, you have the money, you know that the server relies on tips to support themself and their family, and you don't tip them. That, to me, is very selfish.
I could really care less what the service industry payroll policy should be. I know what it is, and I will pay my servers when I go out to eat. If those of you that are arguing against tipping well really act the way that you perport you do, well, I'm sorry. I thought some of you were better than that.
But hey! It doesn't matter how much servers make, it doesn't matter that they need tips to survive. There is a principle here galdernit and I'd rather screw over strangers than bend! Nice.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If you're a generous person by nature, your average might be higher
See, this is exactly the impression that I think is flawed. Someone's generosity of spirit is unlikely to be be accurately measured by their tacit support of the tipping tradition.
quote:What matters is that there is a huge population of servers in America that work very hard and deserve to be paid for it. Why not pay them?
Because it's not my JOB to pay them. Lots of people work hard and are underpaid for it. Do you tip dishwashers?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Do you tip dishwashers?
Only accidentally, if they're offbalance.
quote:Because it's not my JOB to pay them.
Yet, I'm pretty sure you do. You may say how unfair it is to have to, but I can't imagine you leaving no tip for a server who did his job, simply because you feel the restaurant should pay him and you shouldn't have to.
So, in principle, sure, you shouldn't have to pay them, and it's not your job to pay them. In practice, your tips pay their salary, and to withhold that on principle isn't exactly considerate.
quote:See, this is exactly the impression that I think is flawed. Someone's generosity of spirit is unlikely to be be accurately measured by their tacit support of the tipping tradition.
Where might one's generosity be accurately measured? Is there a metric unit for generosity I missed in middle school?
Generosity, like most behavior, is gauged based on past experience. If you're used to smiles in the workplace and you move to a workplace that has none, you may measure those people to be less happy - whether that's accurate or not. If you're used to getting verbal abuse in the workplace and you move to a workplace that has none, you may measure those people to be kinder - whether or not they are.
If a server is used to 15% tips, and they get a 25% tip, they'll see that as generosity more often than not. If they get a 5% tip, they'll see that as someone being cheap more often than not. All based on past experience in similar situations.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Gah! I just can't stop!
Okay, so because it is not required of you to tip, you are completely comfortable with your servers going home without enough money to support themselves? You are aware, I assume, that a server's minimum wage is far less than the minimum wage for any other labor. You are aware, I assume, that they require tips to survive. Yet you still see no problems with sending them home with less money than they can afford to live on?
And yes, if dishwashers made 2.15 an hour I would definitely march my happy a** back into the kitchen and hand them cash. Not because anyone is forcing me to, or because there is a social norm, but because there is a person working back there that should be compensated. It's not about what you have to do, it's about what you should do.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If a server is used to 15% tips, and they get a 25% tip, they'll see that as generosity more often than not.
I said nothing about the server's perceptions. People who do not tip may still be very generous, indeed. Their server may not think so, but that server might in fact be wrong. (In the same way, someone who left you a $100 tip may not be generous; he could simply be slightly drunk and hoping to sleep with you.)
That there's a social expectation of tipping does not speak to the morality, effectiveness, or utility of tipping as a mechanism.
quote:Okay, so because it is not required of you to tip, you are completely comfortable with your servers going home without enough money to support themselves?
I'm as comfortable with this as I am with the thought that the guy scanning my groceries is going home without enough money to support his family. Like I said, servers are not third-party contractors. I'm not responsible for their salaries.
quote:And yes, if dishwashers made 2.15 an hour I would definitely march my happy a** back into the kitchen and hand them cash.
*blink* Have you worked in the restaurant industry?
[ September 19, 2006, 12:30 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:People who do not tip may still be very generous, indeed.
How so? A person has a very good server in a restaurant and has the money to tip, but doesn't. That was not generous. I wouldn't make any claims about the person's personality on a whole. Maybe every other time they are generous, but that one time in that restaurant they were NOT generous. They were stingy.
quote:I'm as comfortable with this as I am with the thought that the guy scanning my groceries is going home without enough money to support his family.
Again, that isn't the same thing. A checker or bagger at a grocery stored is payed the minimum wage required for all employees of any business EXCEPT SERVICE INDUSTRY. Waiters do not make as much as cashiers.
I also agree with everyone that has said that this thread has gone on for far to long. I just can't stop when someone is advocating stiffing servers.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:That was not generous.
I think you're using a definition of "generous" that specifically excludes that behavior, whereas I'm not.
quote:Waiters do not make as much as cashiers.
And what do you think is the best way to change this policy?
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Hmm, not tipping? No, no, that wouldn't work at all (as has been discussed at lenght elsewhere in this thread). How about lobbying Congress? How about, it doesn't matter because it won't change and there are still people that should be paid.
Nevermind. This time, I'm really gonna try to be done with this thread. Tom, just one question: on an average trip to a restaurant, with average service and average food, do you tip apx. 15% or more? If the answer is no, then there is nothing anyone can say to make you change your mind. If the answer is yes, well, good, that's all I wanted to hear.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
My actual tipping habits are, as far as I can tell, absolutely irrelevant to the conversation.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Vonk: As you said, a checker or bagger is paid the minimum wage. As we've also established a waiter's salary is a smaller hourly amount *plus* tips which makes it on average higher than minimum wage.
Thus. you can't argue that you should tip a waiter based on hardship, because they still have it better than many other jobs. You need to go beyond charity, which is what Tom has been pointing out.
General point: I don't think anyone is under the impression that prices would not increase if tipping were elimnated or severely curtained. The point is that we would prefer a less arbitrary system that is more transparent.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:That there's a social expectation of tipping does not speak to the morality, effectiveness, or utility of tipping as a mechanism.
For the servers taking home the money, I'd say tipping is effective in giving them money to utilize for a number of things. Morally, you're on your own.
quote:I said nothing about the server's perceptions.
You said "Someone's generosity of spirit is unlikely to be be accurately measured by their tacit support of the tipping tradition." Who would be doing the measuring if not the server in this case? And how would they measure if not by using their perceptions?
quote:Their server may not think so, but that server might in fact be wrong.
I would venture to say generosity is in the eye of the receiver. While a person my feel generous in leaving that nickel on the table, they may still be considered ungenerous by others. While a person may feel ungenerous by only leaving 18% (their usual being 20%), they may still be considered generous by others (who usually tip 15%).
quote:(In the same way, someone who left you a $100 tip may not be generous; he could simply be slightly drunk and hoping to sleep with you.)
Or he may be making a show of generosity in the hopes of appearing more desirable. Or, the server could be oblivious to his intentions, and feel it was a generous act.
A generous act doesn't mean someone's universally generous, nor does an ungenerous act mean they're universally ungenerous. People base their judgements on repeated experience - though if there's only one witnessed event, that makes either a generous/ungenerous/neutral first impression.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And how would they measure if not by using their perceptions?
That's at least partly the point. The server's perception of someone's generosity should not be mistaken for someone's actual generosity.
I couldn't possibly care less what a given server thinks, except insofar as it's mistakenly taken as authoritative.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:The point is that we would prefer a less arbitrary system that is more transparent.
So, out of curiosity, would you support the article's proposed 20% (or some other percent)automatically added on to the cost of the meal if that was made transparent up front?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:I couldn't possibly care less what a given server thinks, except insofar as it's mistakenly taken as authoritative.
I'm interested in how you feel generosity is measured, if it can be at all.
Is it an innate thing that you feel inside yourself wholly separate from the perceptions of others, or is it a description given a person based on their witnessed actions?
Or is it both?
There can be no "authoritative" ruling on whether someone is generous or not, I don't believe. However, people are certainly justified in thinking someone generous or ungenerous based on their actions.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Cow -- How generous would you consider somebody who contributes, say, over 20% of their income to humanitarian organizations but who always tips between 5% and 15%?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So, out of curiosity, would you support the article's proposed 20% (or some other percent)automatically added on to the cost of the meal if that was made transparent up front?
Not necessarily. I think tying the value of the service to the value of the meal is a flawed proposition.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Cow -- How generous would you consider somebody who contributes, say, over 20% of their income to humanitarian organizations but who always tips between 5% and 15%?
Knowing both of those things, I'd say they're pretty generous. Knowing only the first, I'd say they're pretty generous. Knowing only the second, I'd say they were pretty ungenerous.
Remember, generosity is gauged by other people based on what they know about you. In a restaurant environment, your personal life and past history does not come into play. You are judged based on your behavior from the time you walk in to the time you leave.
Based solely on that, the server gets their impression of you.
How caring would you say a person was who volunteered 50% of their time to help at retirement homes and nursing centers, but who had a nasty habit of kicking puppies?
How other people view you is based on what they've witnessed. The more they witness, the more complete a picture they can paint.
quote:I think tying the value of the service to the value of the meal is a flawed proposition.
How about tiered service plans. "I'll take service plan A for $10 that includes you simply brining my food and drink and later the check" or "I'll take service plan D for $30 that includes special orders, repeated stops back to the table, meal suggestions and advice, prompt refills on my drinks, and a smiley face on my check."
Would that work out better for you? I think that'd be pretty neat, actually.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You know, it's possible to interact with others without juding them on their generosity.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:You know, it's possible to interact with others without juding them on their generosity.
It's a lot harder when your livelihood depends on said generosity.
[ September 19, 2006, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: FlyingCow ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Would that work out better for you? I think that'd be pretty neat, actually.
Absolutely. Although a better way to do it is simply pay servers an hourly wage unrelated to the number of tables they wait.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
So, would there then be some reward system based on performance attached? Or would my experience at Applebee's be like my experience at the DMV?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:would there then be some reward system based on performance attached?
I don't see why it'd be necessary. Like I said, we don't reward high-performing dental assistants.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
So you'd have the same level of education, training, and salary as dental assistants?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Wow. Where did you pull that out from, Cow?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I doubt it. But it seems rather odd to suggest that quality of service will decline by making it a mandatory function of the job, rather than an optional component conditional upon a server's ability to predict the future.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Quality of applicant, and thus quality of service, depends on compensation expectations and training/education restrictions.
If servers in restaurants made minimum wage only, what would make you think you'd get better quality of service than supermarket cashiers, McDonald's cashiers, or other minimum wage earners.
If they were compensated at a higher rate and had higher training/education requirements to applly, you'd have a higher quality of applicant and likely a higher quality of service.
So, to take it back to your referencing dental assistants - they achieved a certain level of training and education to be there, and are compensated at a higher rate for a higher expectation of job performance.
If you want a comparable expectation of job performance, you need a comperable wage and application standards (training/education).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If servers in restaurants made minimum wage only, what would make you think you'd get better quality of service than supermarket cashiers, McDonald's cashiers, or other minimum wage earners.
If they were compensated at a higher rate and had higher training/education requirements to applly, you'd have a higher quality of applicant and likely a higher quality of service.
And the BEAUTY of this system is that restaurants which want a higher quality of applicant and higher quality of service could pay more, and the ones which are willing to accept a lower quality of applicant could pay less. Everyone wins!
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
It is a nice system. It's the way it should work, really.
It doesn't work that way, but it should. It would be nice.
I'm curious, though, in that scenario, what sort of costs would be passed on to the consumer - and how the restaurant economy would handle the hike in prices.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
How does a dentist or a oil change place handle the "hike" in prices because they have to pay their employees?
It's just part of the cost of that service.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
The hike in prices shouldn't be too noticable, because the consumer would no longer be tipping. The difference would be, as kat has mentioned, the risk of a slow night would be assumed by the restaurant instead of the waiters. Of course, the restaurant could cut staff if it's a slow night, so there would still be some risk for the waitstaff, but less.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:the risk of a slow night would be assumed by the restaurant instead of the waiters
Which is exactly where it should be.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: How does a dentist or a oil change place handle the "hike" in prices because they have to pay their employees?
It's just part of the cost of that service.
but mph, we've clearly established that right now that is NOT included in the restaraunt's cost of service.
If suddenly server wages were raised from $2.50/hr to $7.50/hor (or whatever numbers you want to throw in there) then suddenly restaraunts are going to be paying 3 times as much for their servers than they are right now. if you think restaraunts would just take it on the chin, then frankly you're delusional.
In principle any cost increase to compensate for higher server wages would be about equal (one would think) to the 15% that people currently tip, so for a "normal" person in American society the cost of dining would remain largely unchanged. However, for those here that are arguing that tipping is not necessary, and therefore I assume don't include tip in their billing expectations, they will be seeing an extra 15% that they might not have been paying prior.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:How does a dentist or a oil change place handle the "hike" in prices because they have to pay their employees?
mph, are you intentionally misunderstanding, or are you just having trouble keeping up?
The dentist or service station doesn't have a hike in prices. However, if they were to suddenly pay their employees 2 to 5 times as much as they are now, you would certainly see a hike in prices to accomodate.
If restaurants started paying their employees a fair wage, they would have to more than double their salaries to even make it to minimum wage. Better restaurants would need to multiply wages by 4 or more in order to have even $10 an hour, and fine dining restaurants would need to bump wages considerably more to attract the level of server their patrons have come to expect.
With such drastic increase in overhead, prices would need to increase accordingly.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:mph, are you intentionally misunderstanding, or are you just having trouble keeping up?
Are you deliberate being obnoxious and condescending, or is that just the way you are?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:In principle any cost increase to compensate for higher server wages would be about equal (one would think) to the 15% that people currently tip, so for a "normal" person in American society the cost of dining would remain largely unchanged.
Not really. Because on a slow night, the restaurant would still have to pay full wages - which would be more than the server would have made. There would also likely be more standards on hours worked per week, which means restaurants wouldn't be able to just cut servers when things got slow.
As it is now, servers don't mind getting cut early - they wouldn't have made any tips anyway. If there were no tips, then their hours would have to be more constant, meaning during slow times restaurants would take a hit.
So, instead of a 15% hike, you're looking at a lot larger one.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Are you deliberate being obnoxious and condescending, or is that just the way you are?
Do you always lash out when people point out your errors?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:
quote:
quote:mph, are you intentionally misunderstanding, or are you just having trouble keeping up?
Are you deliberate being obnoxious and condescending, or is that just the way you are?
Do you always lash out when people point out your errors?
Yes, I often point it out when somebody is being condescendingly arrogant.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It is not a coincidence that health care prices have gone up astronomically while food prices have not. The difference in health prices does reflect the increase in wages, while the difference in the tipping amount expected also reflects the increase in wages.
Since 1976, the average price of a house has gone up eight-fold. The price of a car has gone up over ten-fold. The price of food has doubled. That's it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*blink* Where did Porter make an error?
You're just talking in circles, FC. No one here is saying that prices wouldn't have to rise; in fact, we're saying it'd be a good thing.
And the restaurant industry, like almost every other industry in the world, would have to learn how to manage its labor appropriately.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Kat -- are you talking about food you buy in a grocery store, or food you buy in a restaurant? Those are two very different beasts.
edit: to change the period into a question mark
[ September 19, 2006, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:You know, it's possible to interact with others without judging them on their generosity.
For someone who seems so against being judgemental, you're awfully quick on the trigger.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't know. I think that I showed restraint.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:mph, are you intentionally misunderstanding, or are you just having trouble keeping up?
Are you deliberate being obnoxious and condescending, or is that just the way you are?
mph, FC has a perfectly legitimate question here... you've been an active part of this discussion, so I agree with his confusion when you try making the comparison here to dental workers.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Tom, he said:
quote:How does a dentist or a oil change place handle the "hike" in prices because they have to pay their employees?
Where'd that comparison come from? The hike comes from a change in the system. There was never any mention of changing the dentistry/mechanic system. Hence, no hike.
It was a silly argument that had no bearing on the topic. Grimace addressed it just before I did, albeit in a far more tactful manner.
My apologies, mph. I didn't mean to come off as snarky as I did, but for the last three pages I feel as though I've been under particular attack by you.
With Tom, it has felt like a rhetorical discussion, with you it's been more targeted "gotchas" instead of constructed responses.
I didn't mean to offend.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I agree with his confusion when you try making the comparison here to dental workers.
To be fair, I made the comparison. And it's this: if we eliminate tipping, the market for waitstaff becomes similar to the market for other mid-to-low-end service jobs, ranging from dental assistants at the high end of the scale down to burger-flippers at the low end. And I think that's a good thing for everyone concerned.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:mph, FC has a perfectly legitimate question here.
Asking which is true -- am I being dishonest and pretending to not understand, or am I just not bright enough to understand his posts -- is not a perfectly legitimate question.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
When did you stop beating your wife?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
My night at work reminded me of this thread.
1. A girl spent all night waiting on a large party of people. At the end of the night their bill was about $200, for which they left her a 4 dollar tip. Now on a busy night like tonight, we have a food runner, and a service bartender to get drinks because the bartenders just don't have time. Servers have to tip out the busser, servicebar, and food runner, 1% of their food sales, and still have to pay tax (7% of sales I think) on the rest. Basically, by the time she finished serving the table, paid her taxes, and tipped people out, she ended up having to PAY TO WAIT ON THEM, as opposed to getting paid to do it. She was understandably upset (in the back crying for awhile), as what should have been a forty dollar tip ended up being a tenth of that.
2. If you paid servers where I work what the low end cooks make, there wouldn't be many servers. I make $11 an hour, which is damned good I think for my age and lack of training, and position as a college student. None of my friends the same age as me make even $9 an hour, so I really can't complain. But I can't think of many servers who'd work for what I make any time other than the summer, when it's slow. Who'd want to work a busy night, or take a demanding party on, when there's no incentive to do so? There's no regularity to the job at all. I think a mixed hour wage/reduced tip would be a fair compromise between incentive based good service and guarantee of good pay for servers.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Servers have to tip out the busser, servicebar, and food runner, 1% of their food sales, and still have to pay tax (7% of sales I think) on the rest.
I'm surprised that this isn't illegal.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:It's a lot harder when your livelihood depends on said generosity.
Who's fault is that, ultimately?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Not putting fault anywhere, just saying you tend to judge people on thins that are important to you. When your livelihood depends on generosity, you're more apt to judge that trait in people.
quote:I'm surprised that this isn't illegal.
Thinking more about the system, I'm surprised a great many common practices aren't illegal.
I had a tipping dilemma last night, actually, that I wanted to share.
We had a waitress who was very good. Prompt, courteous, friendly, helpful. My girlfriend got to talking to her about how the restaurant was to work at, because she's looking at picking up some serving shifts while she's back in school for her master's.
Two items came up that hadn't yet been presented in this thread.
First was the fact that she was a trainee, and therefore made no tips. This is pretty common, and I also have waited tables in restaurants for no tips. Whatever tip is left goes to your trainer/trainers - even though they do no actual work other than watching to make sure their trainee doesn't screw up.
Second was the fact that tips in the restaurant were pooled, meaning at the end of the night the four servers would put all their tips in a big pile and divide four ways.
In this particular case, the restaurant apparently trains for two weeks - meaning no tips at all for the trainee for two weeks. This fact made my girlfriend mentally cross off the restaurant from her possible list, but it also meant that our wonderful server wasn't going to see any tip if we left a large one or not.
Our waitress was going off shift, and the other waitresses would be cashing out our check for her. As she was going by in plain clothes, another friend at the table (there were three of us) gave her $10 (on the $51 check) and told her to take it. She did, and left.
The dilemma came now in the fact that if we left nothing on the check (I'm a semi-regular in this restaurant, and two of the waitresses recognize me when I come in), then they could very easily assume that the waitress pocketed the money. Yet we couldn't justify leaving a standard tip, because the people getting it did no work for us.
We ended up leaving $5. I don't know if that's good, bad or indifferent. We just did. It was an uncomfortable situation, essentially caused by our friend jumping out and giving her a tip on her way out of the restaurant.
Now, I'm pretty sure the restaurant pays actual minimum wage for trainees. I've been down that road myself, making a boatload for my trainer who made plenty of tips on her own tables while getting my $5.50 an hour or so. I paid my dues, then made money later. But my training was only ever 2-3 days, not two weeks. That's just crazy.
Beyond that, I never liked the idea of pooled tips. Behind a bar, I understand, because you often are just tagteaming the whole bar and picking up whatever tips you see on the rail to drop in the bucket. But in a room with four servers? Just seems weird.
I know I'd never work there, and my girlfriend came to the same conclusion. I'm just curious how prevalent these two other "broken" facets of the system are?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Yet we couldn't justify leaving a standard tip, because the people getting it did no work for us.
Don't you think training counts as work? Don't you think teachers deserve payment for what they do?
Incidently, all of these situations do raise one question: If the pay practices are unfair, why are they working there?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You think having employees is proof that a company is dealing fairly with them?
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Pay practices might be unfair, but if it's a busy night, i can walk out with 170 bucks in my pocket. that's why we work in restaurants Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Don't you think training counts as work? Don't you think teachers deserve payment for what they do?
Normally in a training situation, the trainer is with you as you approach the table, assists with bringing food out, jumps in to help the trainee with anything forgotten or missed, etc. They often have a reduced number of tables (or none at all) so they can focus on how well (or not well) the trainee is doing.
The thing is, in this particular instance, it was the waitress' fourth day on the job. She knew everything backwards and forwards, and no other servers approached our table or shadowed her at all. Beyond this, the tips were pooled - so the other three waitresses (none of whom approached our table or aided the trainee) would have split the trainee's tips.
Ordinarily, I have no problem tipping trainees with shadows (because I've been shadowed and have done shadowing and understand that system), but in this case it seemed particularly unfair to the server. When a trainee knows their stuff, you let them go solo (in any place I've worked) - not hold them to no tips for an additional week and a half.
quote:If the pay practices are unfair, why are they working there?
Funny you should mention it, because that restaurant has a particularly high turnover in waitstaff. The trainee said she probably wouldn't stay there long, and said that a lot of servers left because the tip setup wasn't very favorable.
I do second Leonide, though. For all the potential downsides, there are potential upsides. A slow night can leave you with barely enough for gas money for the week, let alone rent or food. But a busy night can be very profitable.
It's intermittant reinforcement, which is incredibly effective on lab rats - and also on people.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Most restaurants have an extremely high turnover rate. Where I work, we get a new batch of 20 servers every month or so, and by the time the next batch comes in, there's room for them.
It's been a BIT different lately, because of the local economy, people are a bit less willing to quit on a whim when they know they really can't make quite as much at other restaurants in the area. We're a bit more high end, and very high traffic, so it's good money for servers.
New servers at Champps (Where I work), have to do 4 (might be 2, now that I think of it) server follows, 2 expo follows, and a manager wait. So, however quickly they can get that done, is how long their training takes. Personally I hate the training, as I have to lead them all by the hand when they are doing their expo follow, and I don't get anything for my trouble. I think the training rate here is something like $7.50 an hour. Usually the trainees are attached to the hip of the trainers, it's a bit of a rule to never let your trainee/trainer out of your sight. Everyone gets a pretty good impression pretty fast of who is and isn't going to work out.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I eat at this restaurant probably once every couple of weeks. It's a small place, not a chain. There are maybe six waitresses total, and only two of them are consistant. When 2/3 of your staff is turning over every couple of weeks, there's a problem.
By contrast, I bartended at a similar sized pub/restaurant with eight servers, and in my six months there, not one of them left. I go back there now, two years later, and four of the eight are still there.
But when your trainee, who's good, who's worked in other restaurants, is already thinking of quitting in their first week? I think it might be time to adjust some things.
I'm thinking the two consistent waitresses only stay because they keep making a bunch off of trainees, too. I mean, if you're constantly getting trainee money added to the tip pool on top of your own tips, and you don't need to do any shadowing or handholding? Seems pretty exploitative, but it explains why they're there.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
How often do new trainees come through? Seems a silly reason to stay on unless they are getting that trainee money on a weekly or daily basis.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
You're alive and posting!!! Yay!![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Eros, I'm going to put a ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)