The job of the employer is to pay the employee. Not the customer.
What's sad about tipping is that not only does the employer get the customer to pay their staff, they then get the staff to pay other staff members by dividing the tips.
What an unethical system.
I can't believe it's legal.
Tipping isn't America's worst custom, America's worst custom would have to be mass shootings!
But yeah, tipping needs to end, and no time like the present! Restaurants are facing staff shortages right now, as nobody wants to work for less than minimum wage plus tips if they can avoid it, with added bonuses of abuse from both customers or management in most places. Tipping is not only an unreliable way to pay one's rent, it absolutely brings out the worst in customers, because there are too many assholes out there who enjoy a chance to make someone else miserable by failing to tip, or who want to see someone grovel for a $5 difference. Restaurant culture needs to change, if not federal law, the service charge just needs to go on the bill as a matter of course, the way it does in civilized countries.
I would think that someone working off tips probably does better than someone working for a standard wage during days and times when the business is busy. But they also have to work through the slow parts of the week and the day.
shareWell that's the thing about relying on tips for income, it's unreliable. You never know when a pandemic will strike and the restaurant will change to take-out and Doordash only, or church groups that believe in leaving pamphlets instead of tips will take a liking to your restaurant, or the new manager will start claiming a share of the tip pool for the restaurant. Or if a celebrity comes in, they may leave you a massive tip or none, because some people think that the restaurant should be so grateful for the publicity value of a celebrity visit that the meal should be comped. And the IRS taxes servers a fixed amount for income received as tips, whether they're tipped well or not!
Which has to be something that drives people away from the field. Not only do most servers have to deal with a hell of a lot of assholes, sitting both at the tables and in the manager's office, but how the hell can a person budget expenses if they don't know what they're going to earn? That just won't do, in a time when the cost of living is rising so sharply!
No, the whole restaurant industry needs to change, and it needs to start with individual restaurants just going to a "no tipping, there's a service charge" policy (which I've seen at some places). Because of course, if there's a question of outlawing tipping, it'll all get politicized and framed as "Taking away our freedoms (freedom to ruin the waitress's day)", instead of common sense.
People do not have to be servers, do something else if it doesn't provide a satisfactory source of income.
shareWell that's exactly what's happening, fast food outlets and restaurants are complaining that they can't get people to take abuse for less than a living wage.
Apparently a huge number of the servers who were furloughed during the pandemic and shutdowns actually HAVE found something else to do, and aren't coming back.
That is such a ridiculous statement concerning fast food. Why should flipping burgers and taking orders at a drive through be a living wage type job? Those are meant to be jobs for students, (and many places provide tuition reimbursement), retirees, etc.
Good for the ones who have moved on - exactly how the system should work. Restaurants may have to reconsider how they pay servers, but it should because they decide it's in their best interest - not a government mandate on salary.
Oh, so you mean that certain jobs are just for students?
Seriously?
No, I already mentioned that those jobs can be attractive to other people. But if the people working these job really aren't qualified to do anything else why should they be paid more simply because they don't have whatever it takes to make whatever you consider to be a living wage?
shareWhy should fast food jobs be a living wage job? Well, because at the moment, fast food outlets can't staff up by offering part-time minimum wages, zero benefits, irregular hours, and crappy working conditions. The free market demands that these places pay higher wages instead of bitching about the work force!
Also, because at least where I live, fast food windows are as likely to be manned by an adult (over 30) as someone of high school or college age, these are people who are old enough to have rent to pay and children to support, and who are probably working two or three jobs to keep a roof over the family's heads.
Sorry, but I don't think that flipping burgers, working a cash register, being a hostess at a restaurant.... are jobs that require a living wage.
If someone needs more income, then they should do what is necessary to increase their skills to make more money. If that means putting off having children, going to school, (not necessary to have a 4 year degree for a good job), staying out of debt, then so be it.
You... DON'T THINK THAT FULL-TIME JOBS REQUIRES A LIVING WAGE???
What are the people who staff these jobs supposed to LIVE on, then? Seriously, listen to yourself.
I don't think most people work full time at fast food restaurants unless they are in management.
But feel free to correct me about that if you know differently.
And to answer your question - the short answer is, "No I don't." Wages should be based on skills required for a specific position - not because we should be "fair."
You don't seem to understand what a living wage is - it's not a reward for special skills or anything, it's what everyone needs to keep a roof over their head and put clothes on the kids' back, just for showing up for work. What happens to society, when millions work and work, and still have to go without basic needs even though their working full time? Or are working at Taco Bell, in addition to their full-time job, with who knows what cost to their health and personal lives?
Remember, Henry Ford paid his factor workers double the standard wage of his time, and he was the ultimate capitalist and an arch-conservative. But he was smart enough to realize that capitalism benefitted when wages were high, because more people could afford to buy more goods - particularly automobiles. A society where the vast majority can't afford anything more than bus passes and used clothing is not a society where product is flying off the shelves, you know?
If you actually cared about those people, you'd stop getting them fired by demanding the companies they're willingly working for fire them all and replace them with automation. You only want to get everything automated which is why you're pushing against the free market which is fighting to keep the jobs low paid.
As I said else where, cashiers are losing their jobs to automation because companies find it cheaper to automate than hire the people you're pretending to care about! If you actually cared then you'd make automation illegal, but because automation is your goal (to force all the poor people into welfare) you lie and claim you're supporting the free market.
You are mistaken - I completely understand what a living wage is and I simply do not agree that people should be paid enough to take care of basic needs simply because they show up for work
.
You honestly think that people should be paid less than is required to cover basic needs for full-time work?
Have you ever been assessed for Anti-Social Personality Disorder, a.k.a. Sociopathy?
[deleted]
Nope - because I'm actually a very nice person.
Henry Ford did what he did because it was good business for him - not because the government regulated what he paid his employees.
This is where you and I differ.
I honestly believe anyone who is insane enough to think that people who are working that job need someone else to decide if they're making enough money to survive is part of the problem. The free market proves people are willing to work for the salary... no matter how anti-science and anti-capitalist you are, the fact is that they work at the rate the free market dictates their labor is worth.
shareAbsolutely.
And who determines what a living wage is? Someone who is young and single, maybe sharing an apartment with a couple of friends, needs far less for basic necessities than say a single parent
So suddenly salary is based on needs rather than what the job is actually worth?
What a hoot!
I honestly believe that the real goal here is to push all low paying jobs into the automation industry to create more high paying jobs. Notice how complains about manufacturing going overseas or other such low skill work being replaced with automation are ignored... but flipping a burger is on their radar for needing a "living wage" for some reason.
I mean, how could anyone be working these jobs and living if they weren't already earning living wages!
No, "the free market" demands that fast food jobs get paid next to nothing, that's why people like you are pushing for government interference in the fast food industry and hiking wages up to levels where a person doing minimal work for minimal pay makes the same as the one who graduated from college and actually does real work.
shareNone of my arguments on this thread have involved the "federal living wage" issue, I've been pointing out that the Free Market is currently demanding higher wages in the food industry.
No, the free market isn't demanding higher wages in the food industry... YOU are demanding higher wages. The people who actually work the jobs want to keep their jobs and don't want to be replaced with automated versions (such as how McDonalds doesn't let customers order food inside the store, you have to use a computer they setup so they don't have to hire someone to take orders.)
Being someone who clearly wants government interference and is denying it, you clearly don't understand what the free market is.
Then why do I keep seeing all these articles about restauranteurs and fast food franchise owners who can't keep their businesses fully staffed?
No, sometimes the free market demands higher wages, not lower.
Because the news source you chose likes to pander to people with an IQ less than their shoe size.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
Sorry you're not smart enough to understand basic logic, but you need to prove causation. Correlation does not mean causation.
It thinks wikipedia is the ultimate source of information! BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!
Well, it can fuck off, tiresome little troll that it is.
She doesn't understand basic logic and instead of refuting the logical point has started laughing like a maniac.
Your kind are what creates poor people, your kind are what forces them to beg for assistance. You do this for their voter base because you're so malicious you seek to deprive them of their means of living so that they need government assistance to live.
[deleted]
We don't use the tipping system in Sweden and we're doing just fine without it.
It is very good to know that all waiters and delivery personnel get the same reasonable salary.
Yeah, a customer will most likely have to pay a higher fixed price.
But that is worth it to know that things are fair.
Yes, and it makes the dining experience better not wondering how poor the server is and how much you should help them with their economic situation.
shareThe customer IS the employer! When you employ a waitress to take your order the you've hired her for services and are required to pay her for services rendered.
I think what you mean to say is that people in other countries are so cheap that they've actually passed laws requiring customers are automatically charged tips because the customers were too cheap to leave any tips.
i only tip if the service is good.
if you can't keep up with the gig.... it ain't my fault.
but i do prefer my food warm and my beer cold.
Maybe it's time to update the system and pay professions that make most of their income on tips just minimum wage or whatever wage would be appropriate for that job.
share