posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
More effective than becoming a bad tipper (thief of service)? It isn't hard - that bar is set very, very low.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
How effective do you think not tipping will be in completely reforming the restaurant industry's paying standards?
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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*
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's possible, BlackBlade. I don't know how the culture started, just the way it is at present.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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%.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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??
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, for semantic's sake, you would be fine with adding 20% percent to the bill and labeling it a "service charge"?
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 1336 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
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).
posted
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.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
