I've had many friends over the years who have worked in the service industry, and I spent a few months as a bar-back earning tips as well.
The thing this article doesn't mention is how many servers feel about tips.
When I first started earning tips, I couldn't believe how much money I was making for the amount of work I was doing. I always had cash in my pocket, and lots of it, and I didn't make as much as servers or bartenders.
I left after only a few months, and have fond memories of the job and swimming in cash as a 21 year old.
10 years on, I had a few friends who were still in the service industry, and had moved up to white-table service in very posh restaurants. They all wanted to get out, but had a common complaint. They wouldn't make as much as they did as a server in any other profession that was available to them. The tips became the handcuffs that kept them in a job that was no longer of interest to them.
Since then, the percentage rate of tips has continued to increase, so I imagine this problem is getting worse rather than better.
As an American who eats out a lot, I have to admit I loved going to Iceland where tipping is not expected whatsoever. Tipping feels like prostitution; when cash is exchanged it's hard to believe you're getting authentic service.
Money is being exchanged for service whether its bundled into the price charged for food and drink, tacked on as an explicit service fee, or paid separately as a tip.
If paying for service feels equivalent to prostitution to you, well, if you want to avoid "prostitution", you're going to need to forgo a lot of common economic activity.
I didn't express myself well enough, but your comment helped coax the idea from my heart to my brain:
I have no problems with explicit fees, nothing about that feels wrong to me. They are black and white. I want food, I pay for it. The non-negotiable, you pay the price on the menu aspect means both parties know fully-well in advance and can agree to what's being exchanged.
It's the ambiguous / "implicit" fees that cause me anguish. The waitress, in knowing that after the meal I'll be forced to make a judgment call, evaluating their service allows the possibility that every interaction leading up until I've paid them has been constructed to manipulate me. And outside an egregious there's little I can do to prove/disprove that. Whereas if its spelled out that upon entering the restaurant you will "pay XX rate for the service to do YY for you" you have the peace of mind that all parties involved know exactly what's going on. And anything they do above and beyond that is authentically who they are. If they tell me a joke, I know it's because they wanted to, not because they thought it might coax more money out of me.
Wait, what? You mean service from my car mechanic, gardener, pool guy, garbage collector, repairman, contractor, hairdresser, sports trainer, etc. - all "unauthentic" because I pay money for it? Or it is only when serving food that paying for it somehow becomes "unauthentic"? It is extremely weird notion that paying for service is somehow not expected. Why do you think all these people do it - out of deep and passionate love for you?
A gardener cuts my lawn for money they are not payed to be nice.
If they are nice then I assume it's because they are nice, not because they are doing it for money, since there's no direct obvious correlation. (Especially if they don't own the business.)
Prostitutes are payed to be nice, that is their service so the nice bit is "unauthentic". Just as the gardener might not be cutting my lawn for love, it's probably just money, but the friendly conversation probably is real.
Once you start tipping the niceness is much more out there as possibly faked.
There is an obvious correlation - if I employ someone and he's not nice to me, I'll fire him (or stop ordering his services) and hire somebody who is. Why should I suffer for my own money? Of course, there could be cases where I have no choice - like when I'm dealing with some sort of government monopoly like telecom or water company - but even there people are usually nice and there are ways to deal with it if they are not.
>>> Once you start tipping the niceness is much more out there as possibly faked.
What you mean by "faked"? I don't want each of these people to become by best friends forever or have deep emotional relationship with me. I don't date them or plan to spend a romantic vacation with them. I want them to be polite, courteous and helpful. How can it be "fake"? How you distinguish "fake" please from "sincere" please and what that even means?
I've always thought that tipping was just a way for restaurants to lower both the wages and the advertised price of a meal. I would rather have a service fee, because, when you are not ordering a multi-course meal, I don't know what the servers actually do.
Go to a restaurant or bar frequently and tip generously. You will be AMAZED at he great service you receive. May not be worth much for a one time drop in, but for somewhere you frequent it is well worth the cost.
So the summary is "I don't like doing it the traditional way, other people do like it and keep doing it, so I must force them to behave as I want by applying the force of government coercion". But of course.
Oh, and of course no case for government coercion can be complete without throwing racism and sexism into it. It's not enough to call police on people that behave not to your liking, you have also to call them racists.
My opinion is government has no place in choosing the exact arrangement of how to pay servers (or anybody else for that matter), and should not enforce one way at the expense of the other because some columnist doesn't like it.
>>>> That was how slavery was abolished.
No it's not. Slavery was abolished when the state refused to recognize that human being can be owned by anybody and so nobody could make a person to work for another person unvoluntarily. Since then, all employment is voluntary. What the article asks for is to ban voluntary employment of some sort because of some stupid ideas of this columnist about how everybody else should behave.
>>> Well, a lot of people seems to not like it, but keeps doing it not to be seen as an asshole.
So to ask for the government coercion to force people to change the whole way their business works - on the way probably putting a lot of people out of business and out of work is not being asshole, but actually standing up for what you believe in - is being asshole? Talk about perverted ethics... That's like saying the only moral way of doing charity is if you hire a thug to mug somebody and then donate the proceeds. Then again, that seems to actually be very common opinion that charity can not be done without being coerced, so I shouldn't be surprised.
>>> Can you offer any counter argument to the actual points in the actual article?
I just did. I can do it again and very briefly: it absolutely does not matter if you don't like how other people pay for their services and how other people earn their money, and how they behave in general, provided these people are happy with the arrangement. If you don't like tipping restaurant - open non-tipping one and have the happiest servers in the universe and put all others out of business. Or eat at the McDonalds - I have never seen anybody tipping McDonalds cashier.
>>>> That was how slavery was abolished.
>>No it's not. Slavery was abolished when the state (...)
It seems you misunderstood my point. Slavery was abolished when the state declared it illegal. That kind of thing is what the state is for. If there is a majority of support for "abolishing" tipping, that is where the state can step in and enforce it. That is the point of democracy.
> So to ask for the government coercion to force people to change the whole way their business works - on the way probably putting a lot of people out of business and out of work is not being asshole (...)
This smells very much like the logical fallacies used by the copyright industry. No business would have to go out of business and no costs would need to change. It is simply about making the implicit explicit and to stop pretending it is a gift. You yourself gave a great examples of how McDonalds manages to run their restaurants without tipping.
>>> Can you offer any counter argument to the actual points in the actual article?
> I just did.
No you didn't? The article had very specific arguments. They are even nicely numbered. Your "counter argument" is basically "I like it the way it is and no one should tell me to change", backed up by a vague claim that people would somehow lose jobs and business.
I understood your point completely and I disagree completely. The point of the democracy is not to enforce majority's views on the minority, at least if we're talking about modern democracy. The point of the democracy is to protect people's rights. Since you have no right to tell the restaurant how to pay their servers, or to restaurant patrons if they should leave tips of not, no democracy can or should give you this right, and it shouldn't matter how many people agree with you - otherwise slavery would be OK as long as slave owners are the majority. On the contrary, one has the right not to be enslaved (or, made to work for other man involuntarily and without mutually agreed compensation) - which makes slavery not OK. It is rather ironic that you invoke slavery - i.e. work forced, ultimately, by government coercion - in support of applying government coercion to mutually agreed trades between people.
>>> No business would have to go out of business and no costs would need to change.
Of course they would need to change - changing the structure of charges would require changing all the prices, and as any price rise, perceived or real, would cost business.
>>> You yourself gave a great examples of how McDonalds manages to run their restaurants without tipping.
I don't go to McDonalds, but I go to other restaurants. So converting all restaurants to McDonalds would cost them my business, that's kinda the point. That'd the difference between our positions - I advocate that both models can work for different people and different situations, and people should be allowed to choose which one they prefer. You advocate that only one model is right for everybody and all others should be banned by the threat of government coercion, and nobody should be allowed to choose what you dislike.
>>> I like it the way it is and no one should tell me to change
It's called freedom. There was time it had some value in America. Now one has to explain what's so valuable about it.
> in support of applying government coercion to mutually agreed trades between people.
...But it isn't mutually agreed. It is enforced by social stigma. Very unfree if you ask me.
> I don't go to McDonalds, but I go to other restaurants. So converting all restaurants to McDonalds would cost them my business, that's kinda the point.
Now you are just trolling. You seriously believe every restaurant would turn into McDonalds by not accepting tips?
Of course, free means you get to do what you like and everybody has to like it and tell you so in polite yet colorful language. Otherwise it is not a true freedom - true freedom can only be total absence of consequences for you actions and complete subjugation of others to your wishes, right? If you do something and somebody says its wrong, then is it "very unfree", right? In true freedom, he'd be forbidden from doing this.
>>> You seriously believe every restaurant would turn into McDonalds by not accepting tips?
No, I believe there is place for different things, even if I don't like some of them. You, on the other hand, believe only things you like deserve to exist and for some reason feel entitled to use government coercion to serve you.
I don't really mind tipping for a job well done, and I tend to be harsh for those who are lousy. (That's what tip supposed to be after all.)
I have complaints to people who is working in the service industry (or have worked in there, as part-time and whatnot) telling me that I should never undertip them/leave without tip, even if the service is horrible, because that's how "they are getting paid properly."
That's total BS, if "tipping" is an incentive for better service. And if they feel undertipping/no tipping is bad because I am docking their pay, by all mean, just include that in the price and refuse any type of tipping.
23 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 63.9 ms ] threadThe thing this article doesn't mention is how many servers feel about tips.
When I first started earning tips, I couldn't believe how much money I was making for the amount of work I was doing. I always had cash in my pocket, and lots of it, and I didn't make as much as servers or bartenders.
I left after only a few months, and have fond memories of the job and swimming in cash as a 21 year old.
10 years on, I had a few friends who were still in the service industry, and had moved up to white-table service in very posh restaurants. They all wanted to get out, but had a common complaint. They wouldn't make as much as they did as a server in any other profession that was available to them. The tips became the handcuffs that kept them in a job that was no longer of interest to them.
Since then, the percentage rate of tips has continued to increase, so I imagine this problem is getting worse rather than better.
This doesn't even make sense. Are you a Communist or something?
If paying for service feels equivalent to prostitution to you, well, if you want to avoid "prostitution", you're going to need to forgo a lot of common economic activity.
I have no problems with explicit fees, nothing about that feels wrong to me. They are black and white. I want food, I pay for it. The non-negotiable, you pay the price on the menu aspect means both parties know fully-well in advance and can agree to what's being exchanged.
It's the ambiguous / "implicit" fees that cause me anguish. The waitress, in knowing that after the meal I'll be forced to make a judgment call, evaluating their service allows the possibility that every interaction leading up until I've paid them has been constructed to manipulate me. And outside an egregious there's little I can do to prove/disprove that. Whereas if its spelled out that upon entering the restaurant you will "pay XX rate for the service to do YY for you" you have the peace of mind that all parties involved know exactly what's going on. And anything they do above and beyond that is authentically who they are. If they tell me a joke, I know it's because they wanted to, not because they thought it might coax more money out of me.
If they are nice then I assume it's because they are nice, not because they are doing it for money, since there's no direct obvious correlation. (Especially if they don't own the business.)
Prostitutes are payed to be nice, that is their service so the nice bit is "unauthentic". Just as the gardener might not be cutting my lawn for love, it's probably just money, but the friendly conversation probably is real.
Once you start tipping the niceness is much more out there as possibly faked.
Simple statement to me.
>>> Once you start tipping the niceness is much more out there as possibly faked.
What you mean by "faked"? I don't want each of these people to become by best friends forever or have deep emotional relationship with me. I don't date them or plan to spend a romantic vacation with them. I want them to be polite, courteous and helpful. How can it be "fake"? How you distinguish "fake" please from "sincere" please and what that even means?
Being nice is to stand around after the job for a chat.
Oh, and of course no case for government coercion can be complete without throwing racism and sexism into it. It's not enough to call police on people that behave not to your liking, you have also to call them racists.
> other people do like it and keep doing it
Well, a lot of people seems to not like it, but keeps doing it not to be seen as an asshole.
> I must force them to behave as I want by applying the force of government coercion
That was how slavery was abolished... Is that really your best argument?
Imho, the arguments were very well motivated. Can you offer any counter argument to the actual points in the actual article?
>>>> That was how slavery was abolished.
No it's not. Slavery was abolished when the state refused to recognize that human being can be owned by anybody and so nobody could make a person to work for another person unvoluntarily. Since then, all employment is voluntary. What the article asks for is to ban voluntary employment of some sort because of some stupid ideas of this columnist about how everybody else should behave.
>>> Well, a lot of people seems to not like it, but keeps doing it not to be seen as an asshole.
So to ask for the government coercion to force people to change the whole way their business works - on the way probably putting a lot of people out of business and out of work is not being asshole, but actually standing up for what you believe in - is being asshole? Talk about perverted ethics... That's like saying the only moral way of doing charity is if you hire a thug to mug somebody and then donate the proceeds. Then again, that seems to actually be very common opinion that charity can not be done without being coerced, so I shouldn't be surprised.
>>> Can you offer any counter argument to the actual points in the actual article?
I just did. I can do it again and very briefly: it absolutely does not matter if you don't like how other people pay for their services and how other people earn their money, and how they behave in general, provided these people are happy with the arrangement. If you don't like tipping restaurant - open non-tipping one and have the happiest servers in the universe and put all others out of business. Or eat at the McDonalds - I have never seen anybody tipping McDonalds cashier.
It seems you misunderstood my point. Slavery was abolished when the state declared it illegal. That kind of thing is what the state is for. If there is a majority of support for "abolishing" tipping, that is where the state can step in and enforce it. That is the point of democracy.
> So to ask for the government coercion to force people to change the whole way their business works - on the way probably putting a lot of people out of business and out of work is not being asshole (...)
This smells very much like the logical fallacies used by the copyright industry. No business would have to go out of business and no costs would need to change. It is simply about making the implicit explicit and to stop pretending it is a gift. You yourself gave a great examples of how McDonalds manages to run their restaurants without tipping.
>>> Can you offer any counter argument to the actual points in the actual article? > I just did.
No you didn't? The article had very specific arguments. They are even nicely numbered. Your "counter argument" is basically "I like it the way it is and no one should tell me to change", backed up by a vague claim that people would somehow lose jobs and business.
>>> No business would have to go out of business and no costs would need to change.
Of course they would need to change - changing the structure of charges would require changing all the prices, and as any price rise, perceived or real, would cost business.
>>> You yourself gave a great examples of how McDonalds manages to run their restaurants without tipping.
I don't go to McDonalds, but I go to other restaurants. So converting all restaurants to McDonalds would cost them my business, that's kinda the point. That'd the difference between our positions - I advocate that both models can work for different people and different situations, and people should be allowed to choose which one they prefer. You advocate that only one model is right for everybody and all others should be banned by the threat of government coercion, and nobody should be allowed to choose what you dislike.
>>> I like it the way it is and no one should tell me to change
It's called freedom. There was time it had some value in America. Now one has to explain what's so valuable about it.
...But it isn't mutually agreed. It is enforced by social stigma. Very unfree if you ask me.
> I don't go to McDonalds, but I go to other restaurants. So converting all restaurants to McDonalds would cost them my business, that's kinda the point.
Now you are just trolling. You seriously believe every restaurant would turn into McDonalds by not accepting tips?
> It's called freedom.
No, it is called anarchy.
>>> You seriously believe every restaurant would turn into McDonalds by not accepting tips?
No, I believe there is place for different things, even if I don't like some of them. You, on the other hand, believe only things you like deserve to exist and for some reason feel entitled to use government coercion to serve you.
I have complaints to people who is working in the service industry (or have worked in there, as part-time and whatnot) telling me that I should never undertip them/leave without tip, even if the service is horrible, because that's how "they are getting paid properly."
That's total BS, if "tipping" is an incentive for better service. And if they feel undertipping/no tipping is bad because I am docking their pay, by all mean, just include that in the price and refuse any type of tipping.