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.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see how you can be responsible for something you cannot control. That's blame, not responsibility.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps it is the manager who should rely on the tip then, and the server who should get a fixed salary.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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
The words responsibility and blame are not interchangable thing in most people's lexicon, erso.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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%)?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you've put the money aside and saved for it, then you've made that restaurant within your means.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Eros, I'm going to put a ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
