At least five states are considering requiring full minimum wages for tip earners this year
Only seven states currently bar “subminimum” pay for tipped workers like bartenders and restaurant servers, but activists see 2024 as ripe to expand the tally to as many as 20.
You're viewing a single thread.
Would fucking love it if we just got rid of tipping all together. Employers -not customers- should be responsible for providing employees good pay.
Factor the difference into up front price of the food/service and be done with it.
But it should be a hard opt-in, no "decline tip" bullshit, social engineering is still at issue
If Businesses don't get a share of tips Square's model dies and SE with it.
Not my problem to figure out their business model.
If their business model doesn’t work and they go out of business, isn’t that the point of capitalism?
Pure capitalism? Yes.
Ordering from a place that you know pays workers in tips and not tipping makes someone more of a bitch. You're not changing anything because without legislation there will never be enough people to make it happen. The system is too established. At this point claiming to be working towards change by not tipping is just making an excuse because you weren't ever going to tip and it's not fooling anyone.
Definitely. In my country, tipping aren't expected but it's a pleasant thing to receive in service industry, in US of A, tipping is expected and people will vehemently defend the status quo.
It's expected because waiters can't make minimum wage without it. It's not defended because people like that waiters are paid so little, it's defended because they're paid so little and politicians, until now, have seemed to have no interest in changing that. Like so many things in this country, the people have to come up with a patchwork solution just to keep others alive because the politicians don't care.
So yes, I will defend tipping until this is fixed everywhere in the U.S. And I doubt it will be fixed any time soon. I'll be surprised if it's even fixed in these five states.
Tipping is still expected here in Washington where the minimum wage for tipped employees is the same.
Sure, because it's easier to have the same policy everywhere than to not know whether or not you should be tipping depending on the state you're in. I think that makes sense. Do you really want people from Washington going to Oregon and not tipping because they think they don't have to?
It has already become your culture, like it or not. Whether you tip or not, employer has to make up the different if the tip doesn't add up to the minimum wage, so you're essentially subsidising the employer as of now. Fixing the minimum wage will not get rid of tipping culture either, and exploitative employer knows that, so they will continue to pay the bare minimum and expect the customer to foot the bill.
I wonder if everyone reaction will change if we change "Tipping" to "Subsidising", because that's what the current status quo are.
This hits the nail on the head. Exploitative employers will always only pay the absolute minimum they can get away with. If you’re going to have a federally mandated minimum wage, then that wage will need to be adjusted frequently.
Has it been adjusted frequently?
In my country we don’t have a minimum wage. Wage ranges are determined by the market and negotiations with unions. It gets really easy to figure out which employers do the bare minimum and which don’t.
So yes, I will defend tipping until this is fixed
Can't defend the status quo and expect things to be fixed, they're mutually exclusive of each other. Human nature demands that.
You absolutely can defend the status quo until things are fixed and work for things to be fixed. Maybe you think a change should come at the expense of waiters feeding themselves or their families. I do not.
You absolutely can defend the status quo until things are fixed and work for things to be fixed.
It hasn't so far, and human nature being what it is, makes it a safe bet that it won't. Having said that, I hope I'm wrong.
Also, its ethically wrong to put the onus on the customer to support the status quo, that's the employer responsibility to take care of their employees in all ways, and an employees responsibility to not work for any boss that won't do that.
Maybe you think a change should come at the expense of waiters feeding themselves or their families. I do not.
YES! Tortuuure them, make them SUUUFFEERRRRR!!1!!11!!!!! /s
If the guy in the next stall asks me for a roll of toilet paper (because he's out), I'm going to give him a roll, as a civic duty to take care of each other.
If the guy in the next stall asks me to come over and wipe his ass for him, he's on his own.
That's a lot of words to say you don't give a shit if a waiter can't afford to feed their kids as long as you don't have to give them any of your money. I hope you don't go to restaurants if you feel that way.
That’s a lot of words to say you don’t give a shit if a waiter can’t afford to feed their kids as long as you don’t have to give them any of your money. I hope you don’t go to restaurants if you feel that way.
You're being intellectually dishonest in asigning motive to me, via a strawman or otherwise, without knowing me.
For the record, I do care, truly, but I also won't be held hostage by corporations via my caring. Its ethically wrong.
Yeah, I've always thought of it that way too: abhor the underpaying bosses and the politicians who allow it and advocate for change, but until then keep tipping generously no matter the level of service.
If you get bad service, your server might be having a rough day and/or the place might be busy or otherwise make their job of serving you more difficult. That doesn't mean that you have a right to deny them rent and food money.
Pretty much where I'm at. Not going to protest a shitty system by taking it out on a waiter, but will vote to abolish the whole thing and put the burden on the employer where it should be.
That doesn't mean that you have a right to deny them rent and food money.
That's the insane part - you do have the right to deny them rent or for food money. You shouldn't, but under the tipping model you absolutely do.
I mean yeah, you LEGALLY have the right, I meant that you morally and ethically absolutely don't.
Which is why I'm opposed to tipping as a system. It's predatory. It transfers a moral responsibility to customers that should be on the employer, which provides the foundation for guilt-based social engineering targeting the customer, and a reliance of the employee on the success of that social engineering - the alternative being not getting paid because some asshole didn't think you refilled his drink fast enough.
Imagine if a hospital or something was run like that. Your insurance covered the doctors' and admins' pay, but the nurses, techs, and support staff all just rely on tips! shoves an iPad with a credit card reader onto your lap*
It's insane that that model is legal for any business.
I beg to differ. I think morally an ethically not letting society dictate. What you do with your own money is the correct stance. If you go to your job and you get paid that is your money and you should absolutely under no circumstances be obligated to tip because society has made you think that they need it to live. That's your money that you need to live it's absolutely ridiculous that people make statements trying to guilt trip you into thinking that you owe it to someone else to give your hard-earned money to them because their employer decides not to do it. Screw that. And no I'm not saying don't tip, what I'm saying is don't support businesses that expect you to pay their employees wages. I significantly cut down eating at restaurants because I don't think that I should be obligated to pay employees wages, especially with the ridiculous prices. The restaurants charge for food nowadays. I absolutely hate the narrative of people guilt tripping other people because they choose not to tip. That is their obligation in right and they should absolutely not feel bad about it whatsoever.
morally an ethically not letting society dictate. What you do with your own money is the correct stance
Eww, sounds like some anti-tax libertarian filth 🤢
it's absolutely ridiculous that people make statements trying to guilt trip you into thinking that you owe it to someone else to give your hard-earned money to them because their employer decides not to do it.
Answered your own rhetorical question. If the employer was forced to pay them a living wage (or did so voluntarily, but that's as rare as an ethical bank), you wouldn't need to tip, but until then, you're gonna have to pay so that the person who just performed a service for you doesn't go hungry or homeless.
And no I'm not saying don't tip
Could have fooled me!
what I'm saying is don't support businesses that expect you to pay their employees wages.
You should have led with that, then, rather than sounding like a deranged libertarian (but I repeat myself) for the first half of your reply
what I'm saying is don't support businesses that expect you to pay their employees wages.
I agree in principle, but in reality they're as like a politician that doesn't accept any form of bribes: extremely rare and in many areas they don't exist at all
I significantly cut down eating at restaurants
Good for you, but if everyone did that, servers would all get fired rather than just underpaid.
absolutely hate the narrative of people guilt tripping other people because they choose not to tip. That is their obligation in right and they should absolutely not feel bad about it whatsoever.
Aaand we're back to the libertarian tantrum of focusing on "-I- shouldn't have to" rather than "their bosses should have to" 🙄
So I'm going to be really honest with you. I have no idea what a libertarian is so I liked it up. I don't know if I would consider myself a libertarian but after reading about it I don't really see what's bad about it. Can you explain to me in your own words why you think it's bad? I genuinely would like to hear your opinion about it.
The definition of libertarian I was referring to is the American right wing libertarian.
Basically it's a childishly selfish belief that you owe nothing to the society that supports you and everything would be better if people were left alone to neglect and abuse each other.
That's an unfair exaggeration, of course, but not by much. It's basically rebranded anarcho-capitalism and idealised selfishness disguised in rhetoric about liberty and self-determination.
If you're going to be part of society, you should pay your part and if not, you should watch out for bears.
You're not being fair in how you judge his comments, instead you're judging them a certain way that fits your narrative.
Not going to protest a shitty system by taking it out on a waiter, but will vote to abolish the whole thing and put the burden on the employer where it should be.
That vote / change will never happen if you don't push back on tipping, that's just the human nature of the situation.
You’re assuming you owe the server rent and food money. Where are you the employer? How does that server deserve special benefits over the person at the drive through, the busser, the stocker at the grocery, etc? You’re an enabler, keeping an abusive system alive to benefit one small category at the expense of everyone else
Granted, I tip generously as well, but that’s because I’m a pussy who doesn’t stand behind my beliefs
but that’s because I’m a pussy who doesn’t stand behind my beliefs
Hey, at least you're honest about it. :)
The cost of paying those people at the very least minimum wage is factored into the price of your purchase, except for the busser, who shares tips with the servers.
Because that's not the case with servers, you tip in order for the server to get paid for performing a service for you.
You’re an enabler, keeping an abusive system alive to benefit one small category at the expense of everyone else
No. I've been clear from the start that tipping is a thing we have to do temporarily so that servers don't starve or become homeless before we finally fix the system.
Maybe the only way to finally fix the system is to stop tipping, so servers will go elsewhere until pay comes up. Normally I disagree with this line of thinking because it’s not easy to change careers, but serving is usually a “job” not a career. If we’re worried about minimum wage, I claim that many minimum wage jobs are easier to switch among. If a job requires special skills and knowledge, it deserves pay as such.
Maybe the only way to finally fix the system is to stop tipping
No. The livelihood of servers is not an acceptable sacrifice to help servers. Defeats the point completely and there's no guarantee that it'll work.
so servers will go elsewhere until pay comes up
Go where? It's not like they all live in areas that have even a single place that pays servers a living wage or can afford to mo.
serving is usually a “job” not a career.
To paraphrase Matthew Perry (RIP): could you BE anymore condescending towards people with a career in the service industry?
I claim that many minimum wage jobs are easier to switch among
And you'd be wrong. People work minimum wage because it was the least bad job available. Unless you're part of a union, employers have all the power and afford none to workers.
If a job requires special skills and knowledge, it deserves pay as such.
Every job does. There's no such thing as unskilled labor.
That doesn’t mean that you have a right to deny them rent and food money.
Their bosses and/or their lack of wherewithal in obtaining a job that pays enough to meet their standard of living is responsible, not the customer of the company.
and people will vehemently defend the status quo.
Well, server employees will, because they don't want to deal with the loss of pay and/or the upheaval in their salary intake. No one likes a negative change to how they make a living and pay the bills.
Having said that, generally speaking, is it people, or ""people"" (aka corpo shills/bots) that are defending the status quo? Certain corporations have a big interest in maintaining the status quo and shaping the narrative towards that end.
Not only that, but there's a very strong case to be made that from a purely economic perspective, a tipless system is better for everyone.
We're not defending the status quo we're stuck with it. But yes, going to another country and ignoring their customs would make people look at you like an asshole because you're being an asshole unless you genuinely didn't know. We're not dancing around delighting in tipping people. We just know that not tipping hurts absolutely nobody except the server. Maybe you're comfy with making someone else suffer to prove a point but I'm not.
You put too much emotional charged word into my mouth, thing i did not said, and that's really tells a lot how you feels about tipping culture in US and will never spare a thought on why it's as it is. I in no way should be responsible for the wellbeing of another's employees, that is the responsibility of their employer. Not tipping isn't making someone else suffer to prove a point, that's like saying me not being a doctor is making someone else suffer. That's some ridiculous kind of mental gymnastic.
What tipping does is continuing the justification of paying them subminimal wage and demand the customer to foot the bill and hope it will make more than the minimum wage as employer might have to pay their worker more if the wage + tip didn't add up to minimum wage. That's some late stage capitalism stuff right here you're supporting, or rather, "stuck" with.
I told you in plain words how I feel about tipping culture. How you choose to interpret that is your business.
I don't need you to lecture me about what goes on in my own country or about how we feel because you're not even talking from experience. Go ahead and "fight capitalism" by stiffing people on tips if it makes you feel better. You're not helping anyone though so stop fooling yourself. You're just being cheap.
Well if you say so, i don't need you to lecture me about being "generous" either. Take your opinion elsewhere if you don't want it to be challenged in a conversation.
What a toxic country. 🙄
Unless "we" change it via legislation, that's never going to happen. Let's explore how it would play out as an individual restaurant initiative:
Restaurant raises staff wages, raises prices to cover the increase. Even if you disclose it on the menu, customers don't care: they see prices 20% higher, they choose to eat somewhere with cheaper menu prices. This is frequently what happens when restaurants try to do that.
If the restaurant increases server wages less than what they would make in tips, the servers will leave for another restaurant. The benefit of tips is that the harder you work, and more tables you take, the more money you make. Good servers can make $50+ an hour if they hustle.
Source: 8 years experience in the industry.
The benefit of tips is that the harder you work, and more tables you take, the more money you make. Good servers can make $50+ an hour if they hustle.
I shouldn’t be paying my server’s wage; the restaurant should.
Name one other job (that isn’t in the food service industry) where the buyers subsidize the worker’s salary voluntarily.
Literally every other contractor. But that's irrelevant to the point.
This is the way it is. Whether or not it's a good system, it's the system which exists. Changing the system will require a transition. If that transition comes from individual restaurants changing their policy, they will have 1) staffing issues as no server will stay when they could make more elsewhere, 2) customer issues as customers will prefer restaurants with lower menu prices, even if the total is the same.
This isn't a value judgement, or a defense, this is a statement of fact. The only change that will stock would have to come from legislation. Societal systems have considerable inertia.
Again, name one other industry.
Why are you so stuck on that? Other industries not doing it doesn't matter. It's the system in place now and would take a big effort from everyone (aka legislation) to change. That's the point. They're not even defending the tipping system.
Name. One. Industry.
I’ll wait.
Many services... Maid service in hotels and hotel services in the industry as well. Taxi/goods delivery(not just food, but things like target 2hr delivery)....
I'm not saying it's good... And I think the fundamental problem exists in these jobs as well... Typing should just not exist. Japan, for example has no tipping... It's ducking fantastic.
Maid services are not dependent on my tips for their weekly wage. There’s no possible way.
Taxi/goods delivery all depend; if they’re working for a place specifically then they’re usually employees whereas if it’s Uber/lyft then they’re contractors however recently legislation in NYC makes it so that they have to earn a minimum wage and be less reliant on tipping for their pay.
Tipping shouldn’t exist, but there’s no other industry where it’s so out of hand as the food service/restaurant industry. Why am I paying extra money to the plate runner when it should be going to the chef who cooked my food (if I tip anyone at all)? The plate runner didn’t offer food suggestions. Didn’t answer any questions. All I did was order.
What’s next? I tip the kiosk on my table for taking my order? I tip the robot waiter for running my plates out? Bartender? Ok. Maybe I can see that, especially if I order a complicated drink. But just pouring a beer from the tap? Ehhhh.
It's entirely irrelevant.
Name one industry with security theater like air travel. Name one industry with lobbying like politics. Name one industry with subsidization like agriculture.
The tipping situation is a product of a problematic history, but it is what it is. The entire system is based on it. Saying something is unique has nothing to do with the process to change it.
Security Theatre is an overreaction to a single event. Most of it can also be trashed. Also, the air travel industry didn't have security theatre for nearly a century.
Lobbying? Very similar to shareholders and boards of directors. Other governments also have varying amounts of lobbying, so it's definitely not intrisic to the system.
Lots of industries get massive subsidies: Oil & Gas, Aerospace, Healthcare, Nuclear, Research, Energy, Automotive, Semiconductors, Real Estate, IT, many big corporation have squeezed a subsidy out just by threatening to leave a state! To some extent, every public service is a subsidy, just where the government owns the 'company'. Some governments (probably) don't do subsidies, but lots do, and one could argue that some system like subsidies is necessary for a well functioning government & country.
However, I agree that the uniqueness of a practice says very little about how good it ultimately is for anything.
My point has nothing to do with whether a practice is good or not. It's about how deeply entrenched the practice is, and the practical complexities of uprooting the practice. Bad practices still require significant consideration in undoing.
My point is that "we should do away with ___" is an impotent sentiment by itself. Who is we? How are "we" going to actually do it? What does the transition period look like? What are the consequences? These are questions that, pragmatically, must be taken into consideration when implementing any large change, totally independent of any value judgement of that change.
I'm starting to think people on this website are detached from reality
Most websites, I've found. Lots of strong opinions about nebulous ideals, without a much experience, context, or practical rationality to support them
They are.
Name one industry with security theater like air travel.
The events industry. Do you really think those bag checks do anything with how quickly they “look” in your bag before going into a venue?
I did one; now you do yours.
Again, this "argument" is totally irrelevant, but:
If that counts the same as TSA, then hair/nail stylists, massage therapists, valets, Uber (and taxi and limo) drivers, hotel housekeepers and concierges are all traditionally tipped.
But again, that doesn't matter. The system is what it is. Changing it is an option, but that does have practical considerations associated with it.
They are tipped, yes, but no NOT rely on tips for their wages. No other industry pays under minimum wage and expects me, the consumer, to subsidize employee’s wages.
Try again.
Then no, venue security is not the same as TSA. Stop moving your goalposts. It's one or the other: either degree matters and venue security isn't the same as TSA so uniqueness of a scenario isn't important, or degree doesn't matter and every traditionally tipped worker is the same so it's not unique in the first place. Either way your position crumbles.
And for at least the third time: your entire argument is pointless and irrelevant in the first place. Things are as they are. Saying "It shouldn't be this way!" doesn't change how it is.
Restaurants that eliminate tipping will go out of business in competition with those that don't. This is not a problem that can be solved by individual restaurant initiative. Stomping your feet and shouting that you shouldn't have to and it's not fair, without offering any actual effective course of action, is just embarrassing.
The only people who have the power to eliminate tipping are the customers. Even if employers randomly started paying servers $50 an hour, people could still tip...and many probably would to get that feeling of moral superiority. And that is sort of irrelevant anyway because how the fuck are the customers supposed to know the servers wage anyway? I literally have no idea what my server (or hostess or line cook or after hours cleaning crew staff) makes at the last place I ate at. Do you?
It's really not complicated. If customers stopped tipping, and servers can't support themselves and therefore they are forced to quit and move towards literally any other industry with a higher/stable wage. Then employers either go out of business altogether or, more realistically, raise wages to replace those workers who quit since the employer would like to keep making money instead of not making money. And thus, menu prices go up to account for the lack of tipping.
No one has ever been able to provide me a scenario where tipping ends without servers quitting due to inadequate/unstable income. But I'm certainly open to suggestions!
Couriers (DoorDash, GrubHub, UberEats, etc.) are not employees. They are contractors.
There is no minimum wage for contractors. The base pay for these services don't quite cover the $0.655 per mile that the IRS allows drivers to claim in travel expenses. The only money these drivers actually take home is customer tips.
If you, as a customer, do not believe in tipping couriers directly, that's perfectly fine, so long as you DO NOT use these services. As these drivers operate almost exclusively on tips, using these services without tipping is socially equivalent to begging in the streets.
As these drivers operate almost exclusively on tips, using these services without tipping is socially equivalent to begging in the streets.
Imagine a system so broken you say shit like this lol.
All you're saying here is that the base pay is too low.
I think the loopholes include:
assuming a “take it or leave it” from a huge company to an individual, can ever be a valid contract
Employees don't get "offers". Employees get "assignments". An offer can be refused. Refusing an assignment has negative consequences. Employment worsens the disparity between huge company and individual, by reducing the individual's ability to decline work.
As a contractor, I can work for DoorDash and UberEats simultaneously. As an employee, both of them would demand exclusivity and I would have to choose one or the other.
paying “sufficiently “ for an employee while also delegating business expenses
I think the service should collect a mandatory delivery fee from the customer equal to the IRS mileage rate, about $0.655 per mile, and reimburse the driver for it. That's the base pay. A suggested "bid" (what they currently call a "tip") should be provided, based on the going rate of labor in the area. The customer should be able to adjust that rate, and be warned if their adjustment goes below minimum wage. A below minimum wage offer does not imply the driver will be earning below minimum wage: orders are often stacked. Two minimum wage orders performed simultaneously earn nearly twice minimum wage.
That just makes too much sense.
False. If drivers don't make enough, they stop driving. Enough stop driving the business has to change their model to entice new drivers. That's how you bring about change. Not sitting online complaining, hoping that the government will get off their asses and fix it
They're employees being exploited by a loophole. DoorDash n' friends are predatory businesses, and are a great example of why we need better regulations on this kind of shit.
It's not a loophole or predatory, it's just something the people doing these one-off job knowingly agreed to. I myself certainly agreed to it years back each and every time I accepted another order. The key was to not agree to orders that don't make any fucking sense. It was all optional.
I don't know how we could ever regulate away the issue of people who decide not to act in their own best interest. Probably best to focus on education or something?
I refuse to use these services for three reasons. One, I think they’re unnecessary. Two, I think they’re unreliable. Three, I think they’re exploitative.
This is why I don’t use those services. They are both predatory, and taking advantage of regulatory loopholes
They do need to be fixed somehow though. I have elderly relatives with mobility issues who can really benefit from these services. Beyond more transparency and fixing the regulatory gaps, I don’t k ow how to make it both more fair to the gig worker and more affordable to those who need it though.
Maybe a subscription model? I’d pay Uber Eats a fixed price for my Mom to get as much delivery as she needs, assuming an even playing field we’re established
The "contractor" model is valid. When you hire a kid to shovel your driveway, for example, you are not "employing" that kid; you are contracting him to perform a specific task. Landscapers, builders, roofers, plumbers, lawyers, accountants, DJs, wedding planners... Most small businesses operate on a contractor basis.
The real issue with these services is one of semantics. DoorDash gives drivers a few pieces of information. They are told where the pickup location will be, where the dropoff location will be, the total distance they will have to drive, and, critically, the total amount of money they can expect to receive for performing that task. The driver is (ostensibly) free to accept or reject that offer. DoorDash may bundle ("stack") your delivery task with other delivery tasks and offer the entire bundle as a single task.
In a contractual arrangement, the money offered in compensation for performance of a task is the "consideration". The offering of money in exchange for a service is a "bid". That's the semantic issue: most of the money being offered to the driver is being called a "tip". It does meet the IRS definition of a "tip", but it does not meet the colloquial use of that term.
DoorDash is not actually a courier service. DoorDash does not operate a single vehicle used for package delivery to customers. DoorDash is a broker of courier services. DoorDash connect customers to vendors and drivers. DoorDash takes the customer's task and offer of compensation and offers it to contract drivers. If they find a match, the customer gets their food. If they can't find a match, it sits on the vendor's shelf until closing, then gets thrown away.
You and your elderly relatives are free to use the service. You can use it ethically, simply by understanding that what they are calling a "tip" is actually a "bid" to the driver. So long as you are placing a reasonable "bid", your use of the service is fair and ethical.
What do you suppose would happen if everyone all at once just stopped tipping and kept using the service? Like I'm serious, what do you actually think would happen?
I think DoorDash would convert it's drivers to employees. I think those employees would earn less than they did as contractors. I think DD would be forced to offer healthcare and similar benefits, which would be contingent on continued employment, making them extortion rather than benefits. I think they would use those benefits as a bargaining chip to secure non-compete clauses. I think employed workers would be strictly limited to 40-hour weeks at lower pay, with rigid schedules. I think they would enact quotas, and strict deadlines.
I think employee drivers will be pissing in bottles to meet quotas and deadlines. I think instead of stacks of 2-3 orders, they will be stacking 5-8 orders, and delivery times will be longer and longer. I think employee DoorDash drivers will be treated as employee Amazon drivers.
I think that switching to an employment model would hurt drivers and customers, and benefit DoorDash and vendors.
That all seems a bit much compared to doordash just raising their service fee in order to pay their contractors enough to be willing to deliver orders in this new tipless world, but ok. I appreciate your attempt at answering the question nonetheless. Although it is pretty odd you consider a stable wage, hours and healthcare benefits to be a bad thing. And I still don't understand why employees are willing to piss in bottles to meet quotas and stuff. I wouldn't agree to a job like that. You probably wouldn't either. Especially for the lower pay you described. Unless of course the stability and healthcare benefits made up for it all...in which case it would be a better deal than before.
That all seems a bit much compared to doordash just raising their service fee in order to pay their contractors enough to be willing to deliver orders in this new tipless world,
DoorDash already has a "earn by time" option, where drivers earn an hourly wage, but only while they are engaged. DoorDash sets an hourly rate of $12 in my area. They still pass through tips, but they also (effectively) require drivers to take every order assigned, no matter where it is from or where it is going. 8-floor walkup in a sketchy neighborhood, giving the local meth heads 12 minutes to steal your catalytic converter? Yeah, you don't get to skip that order, sorry.
We already know what DoorDash will do if they get to set the rates, because they are already doing it. I would much rather the negotiation happen between me and the customer rather than me and DoorDash.
Healthcare should be a government function, not an employment function. The idea that I should only have coverage while I am well enough to work is truly barbaric. Employer-sponsored healthcare is extortion. It is a tool to make it harder for you to detangle yourself from the company when they do something shitty. I know healthcare was the primary reason why I stayed at a job that forced me to work 60-hour weeks for 13 months straight.
Healthcare should be a birthright, not a benefit.
Which is the more stable job:
A: you have to wake up at the same time every day, clock in at the same time, clock out for lunch, clock back in exactly 30 minutes later, clock out again after exactly 8 hours of work.
B: you show up whenever you want. 8am. 11pm. Noon. Three days a week, seven days a week. Skip town for two weeks straight, clock back in and nobody says a word.
The first is not "stable". The first has an attendance policy that punishes you for any instability you might experience in your life. Kid gets sick? Attendance point. 6 points, and you're written up. 9 points in 12 months, and you're fired.
The second job is completely tolerant of any instability in your life. You can show up whenever you like, leave whenever you like, and the job just adapts around you.
And I still don't understand why employees are willing to piss in bottles to meet quotas and stuff.
I don't understand either, but I don't need to understand. Quotas are a function of hourly (employee) labor. Piecework laborers (contractors) don't face quotas. Drop the hourly labor, offer a piecework rate that will earn an entry level worker minimum wage, and your most proficient workers will be earning what they are actually worth.
I don't see how it's my responsibility to give my money that I earned doing my job to someone else for doing their job and I shouldn't have to avoid the service because of that. If I want to use the service I should be able to because, why not, I want to. I shouldn't give that up just because someone wants me to pay their wages.
A kid comes to your door, asks you what you would be willing to pay for his older brother to shovel your driveway. The older brother is going to be doing the job; the kid is asking you what you are willing to pay. Is it your "responsibility" to "give your money that you earned doing your job" to the older brother for shoveling your drive?
DoorDash is not a courier service. DoorDash is not shoveling your driveway. DoorDash owns and operates neither a shovel nor a delivery vehicle. DoorDash is a broker of courier services. DoorDash is the little kid, asking you what you're willing to pay. The drivers are the older brother actually doing the work.
Paying DoorDash's delivery fees and not offering a tip is the equivalent of paying that little kid $3, offering nothing to the older brother who will actually be doing the work. and still expecting your driveway to be shoveled.
The older brother is forced to honor the agreement the kid made with you. If he doesn't, the kid will have to give back the $3 he got from you. The kid will then pout and refuse to line up any additional work for the older brother. The brother "tolerates" this, because most customers are reasonable people and either offer a reasonable amount for the older brother, or decline the service entirely. The older brother makes all kinds of money from reasonable people.
If the "reasonable people will pay the older brother" argument isn't enough, continue the analogy: the kid got money from you. The kid is going to keep trying to get your business so he keeps getting money from you. But the older brother isn't getting paid for his work.
You've found a loophole where you can get your driveway shoveled without paying the guy doing the shoveling. The kid wants to keep doing business with you, but it would be far better for the older brother if you never talked to the kid again. So, you're going to get your driveway shoveled for a pittance, but all that snow is going to end up in front of your door, or burying your car.
Lol the older brother is just an idiot. He isn't 'forced' to do anything at all. The business arrangement makes no sense unless the little brother being the salesman adds value somehow.
I am an older brother and I assure you if long ago my younger brother was like "hey you need to shovel the neighbors driveway for $3'' I'd be like "lol, no, go give that nice man back his money. If you want to be my salesman, I need the guarantee of $10 in my pocket minimum. If you can find a guy who pays $11, by all means keep the dollar. Oh, also I get any tips provided after the job."
Do you actually think any older brother is going to just keep shoveling driveways for $3 when he thinks he deserves $10?
Thing is, no one would accept to pay what's written on the menu if they charged enough to cover what people pay in tip, it's all psychological manipulation.
Prices would need to increase by about 20% and you wouldn't have a choice to pay it anymore, contrary to tips. Or you accept that servers now only make minimum wage.
That’s interesting. In It works all across the world exactly how you say it wouldn’t work.
To be fair, in the rest of the world there aren't tipped establishments competing with next door no-tipping establishments. People are bad at math, a menu of $13 + tip options seems cheaper at a glance than a menu of $15 no tip options. We are talking about the country where the 1/3rd pounder burger failed after all
This is actually true and raises the most important practical point about it, in my view. Convincing people to give up tipping isn’t too difficult; I think we’re getting there. But transitioning to a tip-free culture is very difficult.
So tipping is a byproduct of Americans being idiots?
Service expectations across the world are drastically lower than in the US.
Bullshit.
I drew my conclusion from training servers who served in other countries and listening to their comparisons. I've eaten in other countries. How exactly did you come to your conclusion?
Do servers make over 70k/year everywhere in the world?
That's something people don't realize in North America, restaurant servers make fucking bank! If they complain about not having money it's because of the restaurant culture of going out after every shift.
Some restaurant servers make bank. Some don't even make enough with tips to bring them up to minimum wage. Yes, the employer is supposed to top them up to minimum wage when that happens, but if I had a nickel for every labor violation in the US, well I'd be making a lot more than minimum wage.
This lack of fairness even within the industry, is yet another reason to end tipping culture. Some servers make excellent money but all too many make little. This is yet another institution benefitting a few well off at the expense of everyone else
What's your experience in the restaurant industry?
Good servers make about half of what you think they make. Your number is reserved for senior sommeliers and chefs; the only way FOH hits that is by selling drugs to BOH or working 80hr weeks.
If it paid that well there'd be no staffing issues at all, think about it.
At my last job servers are making 300+ in tip every 8h shift and get their salary that's way above minimum plus they have full benefits including a pension fund and the business still has a hard time finding staff because the restaurant industry in general is a mess including the people working in it that think grass is always greener elsewhere.
Edit: Forgot, they're unionized too
most of your country is nothing like your extremely privileged little bubble.
I'm just pointing out that saying "If they were paid that much we wouldn't have trouble finding staff!" is bullshit. With even better conditions my previous employer has trouble finding staff.
There is a lot more to economy than some number in some currency. There are servers in many first world countries making wages where they are able to pay for their homes and have social services like healthcare, all while customers at their places of employment pay the listed price.
70k USD means nothing in isolation, without respect for local economy and cost of living.
That's the thing though, they already charge enough to cover what people pay in tip but guess what? That doesn't make them enough money. Next time they raise prices. They won't take responsibility for it, they'll blame it on the economy, but never the owners and shareholders that are making more profit than ever.
As a person who's been in the restaurant business, no, the vast majority of restaurants in North America don't make a large enough cut to pay their servers 35$/h. Most are always a couple of bad months away from closing. There's a reason why it's the type of business with the highest "turnover" rate for the business itself.
Now if you want restaurants to give servers the same wage they're making now it means all prices need to be marked up about 20% (since people tip based on price after taxes) and in the end the customers pay the same thing, they just don't have a choice about it.
Yes, just like everywhere else I have to spend money, why can’t I know how much I pay by looking at the prices? Why can’t we all be honest here?
Lot of people in this thread know nothing about the restaurant industry, but feel entitled to strong opinions about it.
If your business can’t pay a living wage, you shouldn’t be in business.