af.acetonemagazine.org
Nuwe resepte

Die argument teen tipping en meer nuus

Die argument teen tipping en meer nuus


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.


In vandag se Media Mix, die nuwe plek van Richard Blais in San Diego, plus 'n Happy Meal van McDonald's calzone

Die Daily Meal bring u die grootste nuus uit die voedselwêreld.

Koffiewinkel vs dagwerkers: Koffiewinkels, voorheen 'n plek van vertroosting en stil werk tot sluitingstye, vind nou maniere om mense uit te skop, tensy hulle iets anders koop, want kapitalisme. [MSN]

Richard Blais se nuwe restaurant: Die naam van die Top sjef wenner se nuutste konsep in San Diego, Kalifornië: Juniper & Ivy. [Eet]

Wenk of geen wenk? Die probleem met kantel en hoe om die konsep heeltemal weg te doen. [Leisteen]

McDonald's Calzone Happy Meal: McDonald's Italy het 'n nuwe Happy Meal, met 'n calzone wat hulle Pizzarotto noem. [Merk Eet]

Bieber's Restaurant Faux Pas: Die popster is in 'n mopemmer van 'n restaurant verfilm. Skending van gesondheidskode tot die maksimum. [NY Mag]


Die epiese blog

Slashfood & aposs Hanna Raskin het 'n interessante (en omstrede) argument gemaak dat restaurantklante hulself en hul bedieners 'n slegte diens doen deur 'n "standaard" -wenk van 15 persent vir goeie diens te laat.

& quot Wil u u bediener regtig verwar? Laat 'n wenk van 15 persent, 'skryf sy. Daar is niks meer dubbelsinnig as die wenk van 15 persent nie, wat net sowel 'n bedanking vir niks kan wees nie ' vir goeie diens. Slegs die kipper weet dit seker. & Quot

Volgens Raskin (blogger, bediener en organisator vir kosreise) is 'n wenk van 15 persent nie onbeskof nie, maar dit is ook onrealisties, ongevoelig, ondankbaar en verouderd.

Dink u dat die $ 3 -wenk op 'n $ 20 -rekening goed is? Dink weer, sê sy. As u u bediener wil laat weet dat hy of sy 'n goeie werk gedoen het, moet u dit beter doen.

Opnames toon dat die oorgrote meerderheid Amerikaners oorgegaan het van die standaard van 15 persent wat dekades lank die voedsel- en drankbedryf regeer het, met die nasionale gemiddelde wenk in 2008 tot 19 persent, 'skryf sy. Net soos die publiek besef het dat mense wat op monteerlyne swoeg en kostuumjuweliersware in die winkelsentrum verkoop, 'n minimum loon verdien, het die gaste uiteindelik die werklike waarde van diens besef. Terwyl ons Labor Day nader, bedank u bediener u daarvoor. & Quot

Wat gee jy 'n wenk? Wat dink u van Raskin & aposs -argument? Is daar iemand wat nog meer punte vir haar saak wil byvoeg? Enigiemand wat omgee, voer die argument vir 'n wenk van 15 persent vir ordentlike diens?

Almal sou baat as niemand die wenke tel nie. Totdat u die wenkbedrag met die rekeningbedrag vergelyk, kan u nie 'n waarde van goed of sleg plaas nie.

Soos een van my universiteitsprofessore gesê het. Dit hang af. Ek stem saam dat $ 3 op 'n $ 20 -oortjie goedkoop is. Ek laat nooit minder as $ 5 agter nie. Ek het onlangs 'n storie gelees oor 'n nuweling in die eerste ronde in die NFL, wat noodgedwonge sy spanvoorgangers moes wegneem vir aandete en 'n $ 14,000 -oortjie beloop het. Hoeveel bedieners sou argumenteer met 'n $ 2100 vir 'n nag om 'n paar rowwe voetbalspelers te verdedig. Ek sou ook nie $ 2100 daarvoor betaal het nie. Miskien $ 100 of $ 200, wat ongeveer 1,4% is. Die bediener moet nie bedrieg voel as hy nie die volle 15% in hierdie geval kry nie, veel minder as 15%. My advies is om persentasies weg te gooi, en as die diens goed is, moedig die persoon aan om op die manier te bly bestaan, anders ontmoedig hulle dit of moedig die verskaffing van beter diens aan deur 'n fooi te laat wat niemand kan verdien nie.

Ek het nie 'n probleem met die vermindering van 20%nie, wat gewoonlik my standaard is, maar ek het 'n probleem met die vermindering van belasting. Ek het opgemerk dat wanneer kwitansies kom met voorgestelde voorgestelde bedrae, of wanneer fooi outomaties by 'n groot party gevoeg word-dit 15-20% van die totale rekening bykom, nie die totaal voor belasting nie.

Ek het hiervoor gewen en staan ​​daarvoor. Belasting in LA is nou 9,75% en voedselpryse styg ook. Ek word nie aanvaar vir elke laaste dollar wat ek het nie, sodat een of ander bediener my kan wen en dat die apostel my haat.

Hoe gemaak met fooi as daar geen tafeldiens betrokke is nie? Ek gee nie 'n fooitjie by McDonald & aposs, Starbucks, Dunkin Donuts of op enige ander plek waar ek my kos en drank agter 'n toonbank uitgee nie, en ek dra dit uit of na 'n tafel wat niemand vir my dek nie. Waar en waar is die diens hier? Dit lyk meer as 'n kleinhandel, as u my vra. Waarom moet ek 'n fooi gee as niemand op my wag nie, behalwe om die goedere te oorhandig? Ek kry die tipkoppies op die toonbanke van hierdie plekke, en ek gaan verby.

Toe ek die opskrif sien, hoop ek dat die artikel handel oor hoe die fooi 'n belemmering vir lone geword het, in plaas van 'n poging om die persentasie te verhoog. As u staat u 20% belasting op die maaltyd probeer belas, sal alle advies altyd ten minste 20% gee. Daar is baie plekke wat reeds 15-20% in die rekening insluit. Dit is net soos 'n belasting as u nie besluit nie, of in 'n ongemaklike posisie is om dit uit te daag. Ek voel nie verplig om 'n fooi van 15-20% te gee as die diens nie goed is nie. Wat beteken 'n wenk selfs as dit & aposs
1 Verwag, maak nie saak wat nie.
2 Het 'n vasgestelde bedrag.
3 Is 'n belediging in plaas van 'n verklaring as dit te klein geag word.
4 Word nie gewaardeer as die ou by die volgende tafel dubbel gee nie.
5 ens. ens. ens.
Hier is regtig geen einde nie. Die samelewing het die wagpers 'n onreg aangedoen deur die siening van 'n wenk. Wat hier regtig verkeerd is, is om wenke deel van die loon te maak. Ja, dit moet as inkomste verklaar word, maar nie as deel van die personeelloon deur 'n werkgewer nie. Miskien moet mense nie by 'n restaurant eet wat nie betaal nie en dit nie genoeg help om 'n ordentlike bestaan ​​te verdien nie. Verhoog die prys van die etes sodat reële lone betaal kan word. 'N Wenk kan dan terugkeer na wat dit moet wees. 'N Verklaring van die personeeldienste. In plaas daarvan sien ek 'n dag in die nabye toekoms met 'n tippot by die McDonalds -registar.

Ek dink dat u nie 20%moet verwag nie, tensy u miskien altyd 'n poging ter waarde van 20%doen. dit & aposs gebaseer op hoe goed jy presteer.

Ek gee gewoonlik ongeveer 15% vir kos, 'n dollar vir 'n goedgemaakte mokka, $ 1 per alkoholiese drankie, $ 2 as jy goed is, of as ek wil hê jy moet terugkom (dit is in 'n stad waar 'n pint goeie bier $ 2 is) -4). anders tip ek nie regtig nie. Ek sal heeltemal swak wees vir swak diens of glad nie as u heeltemal sukkel nie, en ek probeer u 'n boodskap stuur. Ek werk in 'n restaurant (agter) en het etlike jare lank geweet dat dit moeilik is om 'n bediener te wees, maar as jy die geld wil hê, moet jy so optree.

Ek moet jou as 'n veertienjarige veteraan vertel om 'n wagpersoon te wees, en dan moet 'n paar mense wat 'n fooi van 20% verwag, hul verwagtinge verander. Ek sit nou aan die tafel en wag nie op die tafel nie. maar hier begin ek aftrek van die punt. spreek my ('n vrou met vriende) aan as & quotguys & quot, jy verloor. Don & apost vra of ek/ons water wil hê. onthou toe water net bedien is, geen vrae nie, u verloor. wag totdat ons klaar is om te sien of alles reg is. dit gebeur elke dag met elkeen wat ek ken. jy verloor. 15% is wat u kry as u opdaag. meer wenk beteken dat jy daarvoor gewerk het. En net sodat u weet dat ek my buspersoon 50% van my wenke gegee het om saam met die kliënte te soen terwyl ek besig was. Ek het dit ingesamel en dit het betaal vir kollege, hoërskool en kookskool! Vermy oogkontak met die kliënte en bly honger kinders.

My wenke is heeltemal gebaseer op die diens. Ek sal nooit minder as 'n fooi van 15% agterlaat nie, maar ek het enorme wenke aan mense wat ek gevoel het dit verdien, nagelaat en my behandel asof hulle dankbaar is dat ek gekies het om saam met hulle te eet.
Soms as die diens verskriklik is, sal ek dit aan die bediener uitwys en hulle vra hoeveel hulle dink hulle verdien. Baie keer sien hulle my punt en vra hulle 'n onderpunt.
Ek verstaan ​​dat hulle meestal vir die wenke werk, maar as hulle 'n slegte dag het, is dit die beste om tuis te bly totdat hulle opgewonde raak. Niks is erger as iemand wat jou eetervaring verwoes nie, want hulle het 'n slegte dag.

Ek wens u sou die opmerkings van getinmabelly ernstig opneem. Ek gee 20%fooi, so moenie vergeet dat ek 'n goedkoop prys is nie.

MAAR, as die kosprys styg, moet die wenk 'n standaard persentasie bly. Kan u die dag sien waarop ons na verwagting 50%sou toeneem? Dit klink absurd, reg? Alhoewel ek 20%gee, verstaan ​​ek diegene wat twyfel waarom hierdie koers ooit moet styg.

Die vraag is dus: as die kosprys styg met inflasie (wat dit doen), hoekom moet die kantelprys ooit styg?

Gedurende my leeftyd in Kanada het die fooi van 5 tot 10% na 15% gegaan en nou na 20% in restaurante (dit behoort voor belasting te wees, maar soms pas kliënte dit op grond van alles) aan.
Ons bedieners kry ten minste (en dikwels meer) as die minimum loon (wissel van $ 8 - $ 10+, afhangende van die provinsie). In die beste restaurante word die wenke ook gedeel met buspersoneel en skottelgoedwassers.
Ek het in die bedryf gewerk en glo dat die wenk 'n opmerking is oor die diens en voorwaardes. In die algemeen, hoe laer die bedrag van die rekening, hoe hoër is die % wat ek gee.

Baie, indien nie meeste van die tyd nie, mense neem hul besluit oor waar en wat om te eet op grond van die spyskaartpryse. Die & aposplus 15%& apos kom eers in die gedagtes voordat die rekening kom op die tydstip waarop ons betaal, omdat ons vol en gelukkig is en/of don & apost wil lyk asof dit 'n goedkoop skat is, selfs al het ons ons begroting oorskry. Ek dink dat iemand wat 25, 30% of meer wen, 'n kragmeting is wat indruk wil maak. Om goeie diens te lewer, is 'n diens van 'n bediener en om 'n honderd dollar -rekening af te haal, is die ego en die drank.

'N Paar jaar gelede het 'n luukse restaurant in LA geopen sonder 'n wenkbeleid, dit het misluk. Waarskynlik omdat die pryse ongeveer 15/20% hoër was as die kompetisie, en mense ongelukkig nie stop nie en dink. Die kelners was ook ontevrede omdat dit die af en toe neerslag uit die weg geruim het en hulle gedwing het om belasting op hul hele inkomste te betaal. Wat 'n racket.

Die beste wenk wat ons agtergelaat het, is waarskynlik 'n honderd dollar-rekening vir 'n bestelling wat ongeveer $ 90- $ 110 beloop. Hoekom? Omdat dit 'n uitstekende kelner (vrou) was wat dit verdien het. Heeltemal, verdien dit. Dit is duidelik 'n wenk van 50%, en sy was die moeite werd. & Quot

Um, as die rekening ongeveer $ 100 was en u 'n fooi van $ 100 gelos het, het u 'n 100% fooi gelaat, nie 'n 50% fooi nie.

Hanna is ook 'n SY, nie 'n HY nie.

Ek moet sê, as ek en my man gaan eet, kyk ons ​​al 'n geruime tyd nie na die standaard 15% nie. Ek sê gereeld vir my man dat hy te veel tik. Sy reaksie wat ek baie waardeer, is 'goeie diens' beteken baie as u nie te gereeld uitgaan nie en u uitstekende diens ontvang. Ek moet erken dat ek gereeld besluit oor sy besluit om meer as 20% te gee, maar dit is die moeite werd. Om uit te gaan en 'n heerlike ete en uitstekende diens te geniet, is 'n vreugde en laat ons keer op keer terugkom.

In die woorde van Dwight Schrute (van The Office): & quot; Waarom kan ek iemand raad gee vir 'n werk wat ek self kan doen? Ek kan kos aflewer. Ek kan 'n taxi ry. Ek kan, en wel, my eie hare sny. Ek het egter my uroloog gerig omdat ek nie my eie nierstene kan verpoeier nie. & Quot

Regtig, ek maak net 'n grap oor die een. Maar terwyl ek die aanhalings deurlees, was dit die eerste ding wat in my gedagtes opgekom het. Ek wonder wat die wagpersoneel verwag op die plekke waar ek eet. $ 7 - $ 10 etes. Gewoonlik sluit hul werk in om my bestelling te neem, vir my water te bring (en dit een keer te hervul) en natuurlik om my kos te bring. Soms is dit gaaf, soms het hulle skaars 'n woord om te sê. Wel, ek tipeer gewoonlik ongeveer 20% en probeer om ekstra gaaf te wees, ongeag hul bui

In 'n verwante gedagte. Hoe gaan dit met die boer wat goeie kos produseer?

Ek laat altyd 'n wenk van 20% agter. soms meer. Daar is opgemerk dat ek 'n oorpunt het. As 'n kelner my minder bedien as wat ek verwag, laat ek steeds 'n fooi van 20% agter, maar ek sal die onvanpaste diens aan die kelner self of die gasvrou of bestuurder noem.

Ek weet nie waarom dit belangrik is watter soort boodskap my wenk stuur nie. 'N Wenk is 'n wenk. Waarom kan die kelner net bly wees dat ek die behoefte gehad het om my swaarverdiende geld aan hom te gee?

Boonop, as ek regtig tevrede was met die diens, glo my, sou die kelner weet. Ek sal 25% of 30% of selfs meer verlaat. En as ek ontevrede was met die diens, sou die kelner geweet het lank voor die rekening opgedaag het.

Maar as hierdie spesifieke ou dit van mening is en 'n saak van nasionale belang het dat ons van die "standaard" -tip van 15% weggaan, doen ek dit graag. Maar die gevolg hiervan is dat ek in die algemeen baie minder sal tik, aangesien ek nie meer outomaties 15% sal verlaat vir diens wat nie besonder onvergeetlik of goed is nie.

Ek laat konsekwent 20%-wenke oor, sodat ek nie probeer om 'n 'slegte' gedrag van my kant af te rasionaliseer nie, maar Raskin klink soos 'n getitelde douchebag. Soos iemand op die hoogte geskryf het, het die prys van MAALTYD oor die jare gestyg, sodat die wenke ook toegeneem het. Betoog Raskin ook dat verkoopbelasting ook persentasieverhogend is om die stygende lewenskoste te vergoed? Ek sou nie wou hê dat hierdie man op my moet wag as ek in sy restaurant eet nie. Ek is seker daar is nog baie meer oor hierdie man en ek kan dit ontstellend vind.

Ja, die gewoonte dat restauranteienaars hul bedieningspersoneel ver onder die minimum loon betaal en van kliënte verwag om dit op te maak, is belaglik. Dit sal egter waarskynlik nie verander nie. Daar sal federale wetgewing moet wees, en die restaurant- en dranklobbye sal lank en hard baklei om dit te voorkom. Boonop sou baie bedieners baie minder verdien as wat hulle nou doen.

As 'n algemene reël gee ek 20% fooi vir goeie diens, 15% vir so-so, en praat vroeg genoeg met 'n bestuurder om 'n vreeslike ervaring te voorkom as die bediener nie sy of haar werk doen nie. Ek sal eerder my maaltyd kanselleer (natuurlik vir drankies betaal) en weggaan of 'n nuwe bediener kry as om 'n onaangename maaltyd te verduur as ons so gereeld eet.

Ons is nogal groot kippers. Ons doen gewoonlik 20% en voel gemaklik daarmee.

Die ergste wenk wat ons agtergelaat het? Ek het 'n nota geskryf oor die rede waarom die diens vreeslik was op die tjek en glad geen geld gelos het nie. Dit was nie 'n kombuisprobleem of 'n voedselprobleem nie; dit was duidelik en onmiskenbaar 'n bedienerprobleem.

Die beste wenk wat ons agtergelaat het, is waarskynlik 'n honderd dollar-rekening vir 'n bestelling wat ongeveer $ 90- $ 110 beloop. Hoekom? Omdat dit 'n uitstekende kelner (vrou) was wat dit verdien het. Heeltemal, verdien dit. Dit is duidelik 'n wenk van 50%, en sy was die moeite werd.

Ons het die afgelope 5 of meer jare al soveel geëet. En ons hou daarvan om na klein kafees te gaan, of iewers wat 'n goeie tuisgemaakte sop en miskien 'n halwe toebroodjie of slaai bied.

Ons gaan graag na plekke wat bekend is vir 'n spesiale huis of 'n etniese plek as ons 'n volledige aandete kies.

Maar in hierdie ekonomie moet bedieners en almal in die diensonderneming 'n waardering vir enige onderneming hê en nie twyfel oor die hoeveelheid wenke nie.

U is gelukkig dat u 'n werk het ... so baie doen dit nie.

Hier in BC Canada geld die minimum loon vir alle sektore. Omdat dit moeilik is om goeie wagpersoneel te vind, word hulle dikwels meer betaal as die minimum, terwyl die meeste kleinhandelaars dit nie doen nie. Gee jy die skoenbeampte wat jou voet in tientalle skoene ingeklem het, voordat jy een paar koop? Wenk u die spesialiswinkelbediende wat u help om die perfekte geskenk te kies en dit sonder ekstra koste vir u inpak? Gee u 'n tip aan die gourmet -winkelbediende wat u nie net help om die vreemde bestanddeel te vind nie, maar u ook leer hoe om dit te gebruik? Dit is ook almal diensposisies.

Ek verdien minder per uur by my werk as wat my kinders by hul somerrestaurante doen. Hulle ry nuwer motors as myne, gaan meer gereeld uit as wat ek kan. Ek gee tip, gewoonlik ongeveer 15%, maar namate die prys van die maaltyd styg, daal die persentasie. Om 'n bestelling te plaas en 'n eenvoudige maaltyd en 'n bottel wyn af te lewer, verg nie meer werk of tyd of kwalifikasie vir 'n maaltyd van $ 200 as vir 'n maaltyd van $ 40 nie. Waarom sou die kelnerin as die skoenlid nie meer verdien as hy $ 200 skoene verkoop as vir $ 20 nie?

Onthou, ek praat van werknemers wat dieselfde basissalaris in Kanada verdien, en nie werknemers wat in slawerny in die VSA werk nie

"As jy 200 kan bekostig, kan jy die ekstra 40 bekostig." Hoe weet jy? En as die rekening die werklike koste van die maaltyd weerspieël, sou eeters kon eet sonder om bekommerd te wees dat hulle 'n kelner nuwe onderklere ontneem.
& quot Om die rekening tussen die fooi en die spyskaart te verdeel, is verwarrend. & quot Betaal dus die personeel en laat die rekening die werklike koste van die maaltyd weerspieël.
& quotRestaurante loop op 'n dun winsmarge, en die verhoging van die lone sal die pryse verhoog.
Die hele emosionele/persoonlike drama wat uitgewerk word elke keer as 'n aandete by die deur van 'n restaurant instap-sal die kelner gaaf wees of nie? Sal hulle probeer flirt om hul wenk te lig? Sal 'n klagte as 'n belediging behandel of behandel word? En die kelner en die sinisme wat die apos veroorsaak het deur (vir hom/haar) onbevredigende interaksies met die diner-don & apost, sien hulle hoeveel tafels ek moet dek? Kan hulle sê dat die kookkenner onbevoeg is? Hoekom huil hulle so? Al lei u aandag af van die plesier om uit te eet en dra by tot almal en kan spanning veroorsaak.

Wenk het in hierdie land heeltemal buite beheer geraak. Wenkpotjies is oral. Toe ek in Taiwan was, wou ek 'n man tip om my tasse te dra. My vrou, wat van daar af kom, het vir my gesê dat dit vreemd sou wees en dat hy net sy werk gedoen het. Dieselfde geld vir restaurante. Die eienaar betaal 'n ordentlike salaris, en daar is geen fooitjie nodig nie.

Ons behoort baie meer van hierdie gesindheid in hierdie land te he - & quot; Net my werk doen & quot.

Restaurante moet hul personeel 'n salaris betaal en pryse verhoog en fooie afskaf.

Ek is nie seker dat argumente oor die wenkkoers so produktief is om tred te hou met die inflasiekoers nie. As die prys van 'n ete styg (en dit het ook gestyg) - dan sal die bedrag wat 'n kelner verdien op die fooi van 15% ook so wees.

10 jaar gelede was 'n ete (sê ons) 50 dollar vir 'n deuce. Dit het die kelner ongeveer $ 7,50 (teen 15%) vir 'n uur verdien. As u dit in ag neem, is dit waarskynlik dat hulle verskillende tafels in die loop van die uur kan opspoor - dan is die kans goed dat hulle ongeveer $ 30 vir die uur ingeneem het.

Tans kos dieselfde maaltyd (laat ons sê) $ 75 vir die deuce. Dit verdien 'n kelner 'n ooreenstemmende $ 11,25, wat ongeveer $ 45 per uur oplewer.

Om te beweer dat die fooi moet styg, is gebaseer op 'n verkeerde aanname dat die maaltydprys gelyk bly. Dit hasn & apost.

Nadat ek aan beide kante van die kombuisdeur in die diensbedryf gewerk het, waardeer ek die werk en voel ek dat goeie diens behoorlik beloon moet word. Om 20% te betoog, is dat u ten minste tafel moet bedien, soos flambe & apos van Crepe Suzette. As u dit nie doen nie, wat 'n hoër vaardigheid vereis. dan is dit 15%.

As die diens baie goed is, laat ek 'n fooi van 20 persent, of beter, agter. As die diens middelmatig is, laat ek 'n fooi van 15 persent agter. As dit sleg is, sal ek 15 persent verlaat en nie terugkom nie - maar ek het geen probleem met mense wat niks agterlaat as hulle dit verkies nie. Dit is moontlik om die opsie vir die kliënt en die eienaar te besit. Dit is ook 'n motivering om ordentlike diens by u onderneming te benodig. Hierdie motivering ontbreek ongeveer 50 persent van die tyd.

Die idee dat die 'standaard' tot 20 persent verhoog is, is dom. Wanneer het ons daaroor gestem?

Om die situasie verder te verwar, is die vraag of u slegs die koste van die kos/drank of op die hele tjek, insluitend belasting, moet aftrek. Ek gee gewoonlik slegs 18-20% fooi/drank, nie belasting nie. As die diens minder as die gemiddelde is, sal ek baie minder raad gee. Maar ek hou nie daarvan nie-bedieners moet 'n ordentlike loon kry van hul werkgewers, nie hul kliënte nie.

nog 'n gedagte: tussen huurgeld, voedselkoste en personeel, het baie restaurante (veral in duur woonbuurte met hoë huur) 'n baie lae winsmarge. As eienaars hul personeel meer moet betaal, moet hulle die spyskaartpryse verhoog om in besigheid te bly, so uiteindelik sou diners dieselfde betaal. Ja, dit is effens verwarrend om die koste van 'n maaltyd in die rekening en die wenk te verdeel, maar dit moet eintlik alles as die koste van die ete beskou word. As iemand die volle koste van 'n maaltyd kan bekostig, moet hy dit nie self doen deur die kelner te kort nie-hulle moet eenvoudig op 'n goedkoper plek eet. Die idee dat almal geregtig is om by enige restaurant te eet wat hulle wil, werk net in 'n klaslose samelewing.

As u $ 200 dollar vir 'n ete kan verdien, kan u nog 40 bespaar, en as u kan, kan u iewers heen gaan waar u 'n heerlike maaltyd kan eet, en 'n goeie fooi kan gee. Ek werk in 'n duur restaurant in New York, en ek verstaan ​​nooit die mense wat inkom en probeer om ellendig te wees nie- daar is baie goeie restaurante wat meer bekostigbaar is. Ek gaan gewoonlik nie na plekke soos waar ek werk nie. Ek wil nie so baie spandeer nie. In plaas daarvan gaan ons na plekke met 'n bietjie duurder prys, tip goed, en almal wen.

Dit is 'n interessante onderwerp. Die oorspronklike idee van 'n fooi was natuurlik 'n ekstra betaling wat nie verwag is nie en slegs gegee is vir buitengewone diens. Soos sommige ander kommentators opgemerk het, word wenke in die Verenigde State op hierdie tydstip egter beskou as deel van 'n kelner- en aposs -salaris, en die basisloon wat die kelner betaal word, word dienooreenkomstig aangepas. Volgens die wet van die staat New York kan kelners (en gewoonlik) baie minder betaal word as die standaard minimum loon. Toe ek 13 jaar gelede 'n kelner in New York was, het my basiese salaris van $ 2,19 per uur gewoonlik net my belasting gedek. (Ek is op drie dinge belas: my basisbetaling, plus my kredietkaartwenke, plus geskatte wenke oor my kontantverkope.) My salarisrekeninge sou dus gewoonlik nul wees. As ek nie wenke kry nie, sou ek nie 'n sent verdien het as om belasting en sosiale sekerheid te betaal nie.

Dit het natuurlik goed gegaan, want in New York gee mense gewoonlik ten minste 18%fooi, en gewoonlik meer as 20 en meer as meer. Ek het dus 'n behoorlike bestaan ​​gemaak-niks buitensporig nie, maar genoeg om deur die skool te kom.

In ander lande word kelners 'n hoër basissalaris betaal, wat ooreenstem met die feit dat mense gewoonlik minder in die Suid- en Midde-Weste fooi-meer as 15% of minder. Die hoër basissalarisse balanseer die laer wenke vir dieselfde eindresultaat. Dit geld ook in ander lande-byvoorbeeld, in baie Europese lande word kelners baie betaalbare lone betaal, so enige wenke wat hulle kry, is meer soos ware wenke-eerder as 'n noodsaaklikheid.

Ek verstaan ​​mense en verwarring, aangesien die tipgeld van plek tot plek verskil en van dekade tot dekade verander het. Voordat ek 'n besluit neem oor hoeveel om 'n fooi te gee, dink ek dit is dus belangrik om u op te voed oor doeane -fooie en hoeveel kelners (en ander werkers soos belboere, taxibestuurders, afleweraars en haarkappers) betaal word. Ek ondersoek altyd hierdie onderwerp voordat ek na 'n nuwe plek reis. Ek dink nie dat 'n emosionele reaksie soos "ek nie meer hoef te tip nie" of "ek meer kan bekostig" billik is vir die werker. As 'n fooi deel uitmaak van die salaris van die werker en die eienaar, moet dit in berekening gebring word by die koste van die diens-as u die fooi kan bekostig, moet u dit nie ontvang nie.

Nadat ek 20 jaar in die bedryf gewerk het, verstaan ​​ek dat kelners:
A) word minder as minimum loon betaal
B) hanteer 'n ondankbare publiek
C) werk redelik hard
D) en so meer.
Dit gesê, ek haat die manier waarop eienaars vermy om 'n redelike loon aan hul werkers te betaal deur na wenke as die grootste deel van hul inkomste te verwys. Ek sou liewer 'n prys sien wat gebaseer was op die betaling van die personeel se lewensloon, en glad nie 'n fooi nie.
Sodra 'n bedrag as 'standaard' beskou word, word die koers verhoog deur personeel wat soveel probeer kry as wat hulle voel hulle verdien. Waar sal dit stop?
As dokters 'n salaris betaal word, fokus hulle op pasiëntsorg, nie op prosedures nie. Dit sal lekker wees om te sien hoe personeel dieselfde doen.
Die bedryf as 'n geheel ly, want goeddadiges sal 'n kort wenk agterlaat, maar die personeel weet nie hoekom nie. Nadat hy 'n kort wenk agtergelaat het, het die eter dikwels gewen en gesê dat hy iets kan sê aan 'n bestuurder, wat 'n probleem kan regstel waarvan hulle nie weet nie. Die nors kelner doen nou swak werk met 'n ander tafel. Mense wat dit nie kan bekostig om baie kosbare plekke te eet nie, sal tuis bly omdat hulle ook die fooi kan bekostig. Moet arme mense ontneem word van heerlike kos omdat hulle $ 200,00 dollar vir aandete kan opdoen, maar nie 'n ekstra 40 dollar vir 'n fooi nie?

Ek het gedurende my hele universiteitstyd op tafels gewag en waardeer die wenke wat ek ontvang het, meestal. Ek dink dat u 'n goeie wenk moet gee as u goeie diens van die bedieners ontvang het. Dieselfde geld vir swak diens of uitstekende diens (onder of bo die standaard). Ek kan sien waar die voorstel van 'n standaardtip van %15 nie by sommige kan wees nie, maar ek self wil nie afkeer dat ek gesê word dat ek iets moet doen nie. Ek voel egter vir die kelners wat uitstekende diens lewer, en kry nie die wenke wat hulle verdien nie.

Hoekom voel ek so? Baie restaurante betaal NIE hul bedieners die federale minimum loon nie. In werklikheid vereis die staat waarin ek woon, slegs van 'n werkgewer om die personeellid 1/2 van die minimum uurloon te betaal, en daar word verwag dat die kelner/kelnerin die verskil in wenke sal maak. Hou dit asseblief in gedagte wanneer u uitgaan. Nie elke restaurant doen dit aan hul personeel nie, maar baie doen dit, en dit is die bedieners wat die prys hiervoor betaal.

Docscook, is u seker dit is ek wat dit geskryf het? My ma het nooit gai fan hoender of iets dergeliks gemaak nie.


Die land van die fooi

Illustrasie van die luukse Amerikaanse Pullman -eetwa, 1877.

Wenk is in die Verenigde State 'n norm. Maar dit was nie altyd so nie. Dit is 'n nalatenskap van slawerny en rassisme en het in die post-burgeroorlogse era begin. Byna onmiddellik is die idee uitgedaag deur hervormers wat aangevoer het dat fooi uitbuitend was en ondernemings in staat gestel het om voordeel te trek uit werkers deur weg te kom met lae of geen lone nie.

Die saak teen kanteling is aangeteken in William Rufus Scott se anti-kantelpolemie van 1916, Die jeukende palm, 'n boek wat teen die praktyk en die negatiewe impak daarvan op die samelewing was. Die beweging het momentum gekry: verenigings teen kanteling is gevorm en wette teen kanteling aangeneem. Tog het tipping sy plek in die Amerikaanse kultuur vasgehou en die anti-tipping-beweging kon dit nie uitroei nie. Ons gee vandag nog 'n wenk, en vir sommige bly dit 'n omstrede kwessie.

Wenk het in die Middeleeue in Europa begin toe mense onder die feodale stelsel geleef het. Daar was meesters en bediendes, en daar was wenke. Diensknegte sou hul pligte nakom en in ruil daarvoor 'n bietjie kleingeld kry. Dit was nog steeds gebruiklik in die 18de eeu en het oorgegaan van meesters en bediendes na kliënte en werknemers in die diensbedryf.

Deurlyn Rund Abdelfatah en Ramtin Arablouei het met Nina Martyris, 'n joernalis wat oor die geskiedenis van fooi in die Verenigde State geskryf het, gesels om uit te vind hoe wip- wat vroeër as 'n 'kanker in die bors van demokrasie' beskou is- heeltemal as onbeskou beskou is. Amerikaans om 'n diep Amerikaanse gewoonte te word.

Hieronder is hoogtepunte uit 'n gesprek met Martyris oor die nuutste episode van Deurlyn. Die gesprek is geredigeer vir lengte en duidelikheid.

NINA MARTYRIS: Tot die burgeroorlog in Amerika was daar geen kanteling nie. Dit was 'n Europese ding. Maar toe begin Amerikaners na Europa reis en hierdie gebruik terugbring. Terselfdertyd het immigrante per boot na Europa gekom na Amerika, die meeste arm, [en] het in Europa gewerk en was gewoond aan die kantelstelsel. Dit word dus in alle opsigte as 'n Europese invoer beskou, en daar was groot opposisie daarteen weens die feodale aard daarvan.

RAMTIN ARABLOUEI: Wat was die belangrikste argument daarteen in die 1800's? Waarom het sommige mense dit onsmaaklik gevind?

MARTYRIS: Hulle vind dit onsmaaklik en nie-Amerikaans omdat dit feodaal was. En as u 'n wenk gee, vestig u 'n klasstelsel. Deur iemand te kantel, het u hom u minderwaardige, u sedelike minderwaardige, u klas minderwaardige, u sosiale en ekonomiese minderwaardigheid gemaak. Dit was dus 'n kastegebonde stelsel en dit was 'n ou wêreldgebruik en dit het na feodalisme gestroom. Dit is servile genoem en dit is omkoopgeld genoem. Dit is 'n morele siekte genoem. Dit is afpersing genoem. Dit is flunkeyisme genoem. Mense het daarteen geklop.

RUND ABDELFATAH: Wat gebeur in die burgeroorlog wat die vergelyking verander? Kan u verduidelik hoe die feit dat bevryde swartes nou in golwe die arbeidsmag betree, hierdie wipdebat beïnvloed?

MARTYRIS: Skielik was daar miljoene jong mans, ou mans, jong vroue, ouer vroue wat nou vry was, maar geen werk gehad het nie. Hulle het nie grond gehad nie. Hulle is nie opgelei nie, want hulle het nooit 'n kans gekry om opgevoed te word nie. En omstreeks hierdie tyd het restauranteienaars hulle in hul restaurante begin huur as restaurantwerkers. En hulle het hulle nie betaal nie, want die kantelstelsel het ingekom. En hulle moes hul loon verdien deur middel van wenke.

Oor die Pullman Car Company:

MARTYRIS: The Pullman Car Company is begin deur George Pullman. Hy was 'n ingenieur in Chicago, en hy het gesien dat treine baie ongemaklik was. Daarom het hy hierdie pragtige, elegante koets ontwerp, soos 'n besigheidsklas. Een van die groot voordele was om 'n portier daar te hê om u te help met u bagasie, om te glimlag, om u bed op te maak, om u kinders te vermaak, om die klok te antwoord as u dit lui. En hierdie groeiende Amerikaanse middelklas wat wou reis noudat die oorlog verby was, dit was vir hulle 'n groot ding om met die trein te gaan en in al hul behoeftes te voorsien. Omdat hulle dit nie kon bekostig om 'n bediende of personeel in hul huis te hê nie, maar hulle het dit op die trein gehad. En wie het Pullman vir sy portiere gehuur? Slegs swart mans. En nie net swart mans nie, Suidelike swart mans. Hoekom? Hy sê omdat die plantasie, dit is sy woorde, 'dit min of meer opgelei het om die kliënt aangenaam te maak'. Hulle is dus 'n loon betaal. Hulle is $ 27,50 per maand betaal. Niemand kon op hierdie loon lewe nie - die res bestaan ​​uit wenke. En dit het die plek geword waar die wip regtig begin versprei het, want die Pullman -motors het deur die hele land gereis.

ARABLOUEI: Mense het dus betaal vir 'n hoër klas -ervaring, en hy het hierdie fantasie -ervaring vir mense geskep en moes gevolglik die werkers uitbuit om die vraag te vergemaklik.

MARTYRIS: Ja. En u moet sê, waarom het hierdie Afro-Amerikaanse mans dan vir hom gewerk? Wel, om baie redes. Een, hulle moes die land deurreis, iets wat hulle nog nooit in hul wildste drome gedoen het nie. Twee, daar was destyds nie baie poste beskikbaar nie. En dit was nie so harde werk dat hulle gewoond was om op plantasies te werk nie. It was a prestigious thing for them to join the Pullman car companies and work as porters. The conductors were always white men. The porters were always Black.

ABDELFATAH: When Pullman happens, it sounds like it launches tipping in more spaces and through more professions. And what is the reaction among those who are against tipping?

MARTYRIS: People complained about it all the time because it was still fairly new then in the 1870s and 1880s. They complained about it all the time, saying that everywhere we go, it's like a shakedown and we have to pay, pay and we pay twice. We pay for our food and then we pay for the service. Why should we have to do all this? When William Taft ran for president, about 1908, one of his biggest boasts was that he didn't tip his barber. And so then he became what they call the patron saint of the anti-tipping crusade.

MARTYRIS: Many of the comments in the media about tipping bring out the racist values of the time. For instance, a journalist named John Speed, writing in 1902, recalled, "Negroes take tips. Of course, one expects that of them. It is a token of their inferiority. But to give money to a white man was embarrassing to me. I felt defined by his debasement and civility." What he's saying is, if you're a Negro, if you're Black, to accept a tip is OK because civility is a token of inferiority, but to be a white man and accept a tip is unpardonable.

On restaurant workers:

[NOTE: In 1938, as part of the New Deal, The first federal minimum wage law was established in American history. Minimum wage was set at 25 cents an hour.]

MARTYRIS: But guess what? Restaurant workers weren't included. And so it became law that the restaurant owners do not have to pay twenty five cents an hour. They excluded them from the minimum wage. And that kind of codified the fact that you're paying your workers only through tips. And then tips became legal. The law had taken them into account in 1938 by excluding restaurant workers. That's sort of the nail in the coffin for ever getting a fair wage.

ABDELFATAH: There's something striking to me about the fact that the minimum wage coming into the picture sort of shifts attention away from tipping. I mean, that's what it sounds like. It sounds like suddenly this debate that had been going on for decades at that point in American life is sidelined by the fact that suddenly you have this new thing, a minimum wage coming onto the scene. I wonder how you see those two histories interacting in that moment?

MARTYRIS: You've created a two-tier system among your workforce. And I think that was the beginning of the rot, which we are paying a price for till today.

If you would like to learn more about tipping:

Correction March 30, 2021

A previous version of this episode incorrectly said that the Senate voted against raising the minimum wage. Changing the minimum wage was not included in the Covid-19 relief bill on the advice of the Senate parliamentarian.


The Tipping System Is Immoral

For most of my life I’ve been glad that America is a society that relies heavily on tipping. First, tipping allows us to reward excellent service. Second, in a world of rising economic inequality, a 30 to 50 percent tip is a small but direct way to redistribute money to those who are working hard to earn a living.

Moreover, tipping nurtures humane relationships. It encourages servers to try to establish social connection through direct eye contact and a display of warmth. Finally, most of the servers I’ve known like the tipping system. They’ve believed that by doing their job well they could earn far more than they could through a flat wage. That’s certainly what I thought as a bartender.

So over all, I’ve taken it as good news that tipping culture seems to be spreading to every cashier’s counter in the land.

But if you look at the research you find that a lot of it doesn’t buttress my priors. In the first place, the amount of a tip is rarely related to the quality of the service. Michael Lynn of Cornell, who is the leading scholar on the subject, finds that the quality of the service has a relatively small effect on tip size.

What matters most is the size of the check. If you want bigger tips, induce your customers to order more. The second thing that matters is the customer. A survey of 40 million Uber trips found that men tip more often than women and people in the middle of the country tip better than people on the coasts. The identity of the customer matters more than the quality of the service.

In short, the meritocratic argument for tipping falls apart. Then there are all the downsides:

Tipping inflames a sexist dynamic. Some men use their tips as leverage to harass female servers. Young blond women are tipped more than older brunettes. Male Uber riders tip female drivers 12 percent more, but only if they are young.

Tipping inflames a racist dynamic. African-American and Latino servers get much smaller tips. In a 2005 study of more than 1,000 tips to taxi drivers in New Haven, black drivers were tipped about a third less than white drivers.

Tipping widens class divisions. Servers who work in upscale restaurants can make good money. Servers who work in diners struggle. The people who work in the front of the restaurant might do well those who work in the back do not. Many people think the very custom of tipping is a demeaning remnant from the age of aristocracy.

The conclusion from this is that in an ideal world, it would be a good idea to move to the French model: “service compris.”

But we live in actual America. In actual America, efforts to eliminate tipping have generally failed. Voters in Maine and Washington, D.C., passed ballot measures to phase out tipping. Both decisions were overturned after protest and confusion. Restaurants that move away from tipping often backtrack.

That’s in part because consumers have sticker shock when they see the 20 percent tip cost included in the menu prices. It’s also in part because customers like the tipping experience. If restaurants take it away, diners perceive that the service is worse, and the Yelp scores will go down. Such restaurants also have trouble retaining staff members.

So when you’re thinking about compensating servers, it’s best to start from the assumption that tipping will be around for a while. The smart thing to ask is, how can we make the best of a bad situation?

Which brings us to the real reason I’m writing this column. It is common these days to think that the way to do political and social change is: Think of the ideal system, then move to that. But the better way to make social change is: Think of the ideal system, then get as close as you can, given the restraints of human nature, and our own situation.

Thomas Sowell’s outstanding book “A Conflict of Visions” explores the virtues of working realistically within constraints, and the evils that ensue when people ignore or try to run roughshod over them. He would say the constrained vision is wiser whether the subject is tipping, expanding health insurance or choosing between capitalism and socialism.

In the unconstrained vision, you ask: What’s the solution? In a constrained vision you ask: What’s the best set of trade-offs and reforms we can actually achieve?

The constrained vision is wiser. So I’ll cheer on those who want to move America to a no-tip system. In the meantime, there are ways we can all make the best of a bad system:

Tip 20 percent when the meal is over $25 and 30 percent when it is under.

Always, always, always leave a tip in a hotel room.

To combat implicit bias when tipping drivers and others, commit to a percentage for all rides and stick to it.

Understand that the advantages you enjoy are products of both your individual effort and privileges you didn’t earn. Tip accordingly.


Op-Ed: The case against ‘Latinx’

This year, Fusion and MiTú each posted videos earnestly explaining to their millennial viewers why “Latinx” is the new term everyone should use to refer to people of Latin American descent.

The argument is that “Latinx” is a less determinist, more inclusive form of the words it replaces — “Latino” for males and “Latina” for females. These gendered identifiers, the thinking goes, impose a binary, give preference to the male over the female, en leave out those who don’t consider themselves either.

Although the target audiences for the MiTú and Fusion videos were mainstream consumers in their 20s — a demographic thought to be on board with “Latinx” — the comment sections of both videos were flooded with negative reactions, with some calling the term “ridiculous,” “stupid” and “offensive” to the Spanish language. “Please stop trying to force feed some millennials hipster buzzword,” one commenter said.

Not everyone is on board with the term. And yet “Latinx” — pronounced “La-teen-ex in English — continues its march into more news outlets and magazines amid our growing public awareness of transgender and non-binary gender identities. The term is even used officially at some UC campuses and is being considered for inclusion in the Oxford English Dictionary.

In English, I’ve been calling myself ‘Latin.’ And it feels great.

Like many of its awkward predecessors, “Latinx” does not work. Its experimental “x” opens too many linguistic floodgates. And why is this kind of label necessary at all?

One of the most stubborn aspects of America’s racial imagination is the insistence on having a term to separate and identify people of Latin American descent.

It’s a minefield of geography, color and language since we can be of any race and have few things in common beyond some degree of adherence to the Spanish tongue. This is why U.S. Latinos generally prefer to self-identify by their family’s country of origin — Mexican, Colombian, Salvadoran, etc.

Non-Latinos, though, have always needed an umbrella term for labeling us as one. It was French colonists who first dubbed us “Latin” Americans, as a way of distinguishing their colonial project from Anglo colonization in the Western Hemisphere.

We were “Hispanic” for a while in the 20th century, but that sounded too much like it invoked Spain, so “Latino” became the word.

Although “Latino” was invented in English, it was, crucially, also usable in Spanish, which made it the norm in California, with our massive population of Spanish-dominant immigrants. “Latina” followed naturally.

Gendered nouns and adjectives are present in many languages, from Hindi to German. In Spanish, some nouns are male: el auto for “the car.” Some nouns are female: la playa for “the beach.” This is how we get “Latino” and “Latina.” Natural, like I said, but also a problem. To many feminist, transgender and my fellow queer people, the terms impose an unwelcome gender binary.

What’s more, for the plural form, when describing a group composed of different genders, the language generally defaults to the masculine. So if one male is driving to the beach with several female friends, together they are “Latinos.” Some consider this presumption — that a mixed group should default to the male — a reinforcement of patriarchy.

These objections are both intuitive and odd. “Latino” was invented in English, yet some dislike it based on the political implications of applying Spanish grammar.

Besides, the binary rule isn’t even applied strictly in Spanish. There are many exceptions to it. Radio ends in “o,” but the language considers it feminine and gives it the corresponding feminine article of la, so we say la radio. Net so, mapa ends with “a” but is masculine and given the masculine article of el, so that it’s el mapa. The “o” and “a” suffixes are sometimes irrelevant.

By the logic of “Latinx,” moreover, speakers would need to replace the suffixes of other words with an “x” as well. “Amigos” would become “amigxs,” a construction that is unpronounceable. Imagine trying to speak this sentence: “The amigxs are hopping in their autxs to head to one of L.A.’s playxs”!

When I was in college, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, scholars started using the more neutral-seeming term “[email protected]” — pronounced awkwardly as “Latina/Latino” in speech. The term never really caught on. “Latinx,” by contrast, is spreading fast. But it is functionally no better than “[email protected]


After Batali Bust, Arguments for and Against Tipping Out

This week, a court ordered Mario Batali and a partner to pay $5.25 million to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by employees who accused the celebrity chef’s restaurants of systematically withholding tips to cover expenses. As the New York Times reported, the lawsuit said that restaurants owned by Batali and partner Joseph Bastianich deducted 4 to 5 percent of total wine sales nightly from the tip pool.

The judge in the case said employees were told that “the money was to cover expenses related to wine research and to cover broken glassware.” Huh? Isn’t wine markup is supposed to cover those costs?

What makes this story interesting, apart from the schadenfreude Batali’s critics must feel, is how it dredges up the controversy over waiters “tipping out” other service staff. After all, restaurants use tips to augment the salaries of bussers and bartenders all the time. How is deducting a percentage from the pool essentially different from creating an environment where tipping out, while technically voluntary, is mandatory in practice?

While enforced tip pooling is a violation of the law in some states, it’s still customary in plenty of establishments. That’s especially true in places where the law is murky (in California, for instance, there’s a lot of confusion over the legality of the practice). Where it does happen, it boils down to this: Do servers own their tips, or should they share them with the entire staff of a restaurant? Diners tip the waiter directly, it’s true, but are they really rewarding just one worker’s performance, or the broader experience of an entire meal? It’s a controversial subject—even here at CHOW.com, where the subject sparked a point-counterpoint debate.

POINT: Don’t tip out! by Joyce Slaton

I worked as a waiter through high school and college, in both diners and white-tablecloth joints. It was a terrific job for one reason alone: It paid a lot. And it paid a lot for one reason: tips.

I know that tipping out is a tradition, but it verges on fraud. You are taking money a diner left for a specific purpose, and distributing it without that diner’s knowledge or consent. I will concede that it’s unfair that waiters are tipped and other types of servers are not. At one restaurant where I worked, the bar staff delivered drinks to the tables and billed diners separately so they were tipped. I’m not sure diners liked having to pay an extra check, but at least it seemed fair to workers.

Bussers and kitchen staff are among the many, many types of service people who don’t get tips. It’s not fair, but it’s tradition. Believe me, I know they work hard, but so does my dry cleaner. So do grocery checkers, and the guy who runs the convenience store near my house. Should we just tip everybody we see in a retail business?

And anyway, customers are a huge pain in the ass. Waiters have to put up with customers’ irrational demands, their leering and insults, while line cooks are safely insulated in the kitchen. Being a server deserves bonus pay!

COUNTERPOINT: It’s about fairness! by John Birdsall

I cooked in restaurant and catering kitchens for 15 years, busting my ass for a wage not much above minimum. These were small, indie places, for the most part, where the owners worked in the kitchen or on the floor, and probably weren’t making much more than us line cooks. I always felt like we were part of a complex group endeavor: no divas, no slackers—everybody had to show up and get it done, every day.

And yet, the income inequality between cooks and waiters was stunning. In my best gig, the owners made it clear that servers were expected to tip out: bussers, line cooks, even the dishwasher. It was a way of enforcing teamwork, of snuffing out the sense that some workers were worth more than others. It was democracy—forced, to be sure, but if having to read Heer van die vlieë in high school taught you anything, it should have been that, left to ourselves, we’d all be kneecapping each other in some desperate race to be Donald Trump.

When diners tip, they’re not just tipping the service. A well-paced meal has plenty to do with a waiter’s skill, but it can’t happen without a well-run kitchen. When line cooks are firing as they should, the server looks good. Same with bussers who clear and pour water, dishwashers who bust ass to make sure there isn’t a lag with clean glasses. Tipping out is an acknowledgment of the truth of food service, which is that, from top to bottom, a restaurant staff is a team. Paying some players Kobe wages while the rest get league minimum—that’s a crime. Until we adopt a European system, where gratuities are automatic and distributed to staff, I say waiters have an ethical obligation to tip out!


'Throughline': Why Tipping In The U.S. Took Off After The Civil War

Tipping is a norm in the U.S., but it hasn't always been this way. The team at Throughline — NPR's history podcast — examines the history of tipping in the U.S.

More than 100,000 restaurants have gone out of business since last March. Servers who've been able to keep their jobs are now relying on tips more than ever, despite the fact that some people are actually tipping less. Reform efforts are underway, especially in the 43 states where tipped workers earn subminimum wages as low as $2.13 an hour. Today, Rund Abdelfatah and Ramtin Arablouei at NPR's history podcast Throughline bring us a story of how tipping went from being considered wholly un-American to becoming a deeply American custom.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED NPR BROADCAST)

RAMTIN ARABLOUEI: Tipping began in the Middle Ages in Europe when people lived under the feudal system. It didn't take off in the U.S. until after the Civil War, when millions of formerly enslaved people became part of the workforce.

NINA MARTYRIS: Suddenly, there were millions of young men, old men, young women, older women who now were free but had no jobs. They didn't have land.

RUND ABDELFATAH: This is Nina Martyris, a freelance journalist who has written about the history of tipping in the U.S.

MARTYRIS: And at about this time, restaurant owners who began to open up in Chicago, New York, et cetera, looking for cheap labor began to hire them in their restaurants as restaurant workers, as waiters and cooks and things like that. And they didn't pay them because this tipping system had come in, and they had to make their wage through tips.

ABDELFATAH: Many Americans hated tipping, calling the practice racist, aristocratic, antilabor, demeaning. Anti-tipping laws went on the books in a handful of states, but they were almost impossible to enforce. And then in 1916, one man made one final attempt to end tipping with the ultimate anti-tipping manifesto - "The Itching Palm."

MARTYRIS: It's just the most famous polemic against tipping. Everyone quotes it.

ARABLOUEI: Written by a man named William Rufus Scott, it was.

MARTYRIS: This absolutely scathing diatribe against tipping. The first chapter was called "Flunkyism In America." And he says there are 5 million itching palms in America, and it went on from there.

UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: (Reading) The theory of Americanism requires that every citizen shall possess this quality. Tipping is the price of pride. It is what one American is willing to pay to induce another American to acknowledge inferiority. It represents the root of aristocracy budding anew in the hearts of those who publicly renounce the system and all its works.

MARTYRIS: He went on about it being un-American, a moral malady, all kinds of things, a new form of slavery - he called it that. He said, accepting a tip is like being a slave.

UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: (Reading) The relation of a man giving a tip and a man accepting it is as undemocratic as the relation of master and slave. This is elementary.

ABDELFATAH: To make his point, Scott quoted the Declaration of Independence and the Bible.

MARTYRIS: The two big books in America and for tips, he - wherever the word gifts occurs in the Bible, that's like a tip, you know, like a free gift, the whole thing of tip being a free thing. So, for instance, from Exodus - and thou shalt take no gift for the gift blinded the wise and perverted the words of the righteous. A gift destroyed the heart. And then from Luke - and he said unto them, take heed and beware of covetousness - so, you know, to be covetous, to be greedy, to want gratuities, to want tips. He uses the Bible to rant against it.

ARABLOUEI: Or almost like a bribe.

ARABLOUEI: But that's the way he was characterizing it.

MARTYRIS: Yes, absolutely. He said it was a bribe. So our friend William Scott says that the whole system of tipping is like piracy. It holds you ransom. Unless I pay you a tip, you won't do your job. So he calls them like pirates, essentially. And then on the other hand, he says tipping reduces them to meek, fawning, flunkey inferiors. So they - at one level, they're pirates. And at the other level, they're also meek, fawning, servile. So he slams them both ways.

ABDELFATAH: Yeah, he's not mincing words. He's being very.

ABDELFATAH: Yeah - who the villains are in this equation.

MARTYRIS: Yes. Oh, definitely. It's the most famous piece of literature against tipping in America. And he calls America the land of the fee, not the land of the free, so his little pun. He says, oh, it's the land of the fee because everywhere you have to pay a little fee. Ja.

ABDELFATAH: And what does the actual - the itching palm, what is that, like, supposed to represent?

MARTYRIS: It's supposed to represent the worst thing of all - your hand outstretched, you know? You're panhandling. Your hand is outstretched and it's itching for this, for those coins to be dropped in it. It's such a horrible, demeaning phrase.

ARABLOUEI: It almost seems like the focus is all on the philosophical validity of the action of tipping.

ARABLOUEI: . Without much concern about the people being impacted and without the - what I'm saying, the focus wasn't as much on the people being impacted. And it was more about this, like, kind of, you know - I don't know - 10,000-foot-level philosophical debate about the soul of Americans, et cetera.

ARABLOUEI: But at the heart of it, there is an objection at what many people believe to be an exploitative labor practice.

ARABLOUEI: So the reasons were complex and maybe off, but the purpose was to alleviate this exploitation.

MARTYRIS: Of course. Beslis. For instance, the itching palm, that was the backbone of his argument, that these workers should be paid properly. That's the only way tipping will ever be ended. And then his last chapter, he says very interestingly that, of course, he wants a fair wage, but he says that the anti-tipping movement should be much more organized. And he says we should all be as organized as the suffragist movement and the prohibition, the temperance movement. He says that's what the tipping movement needs. And if you join me in this fight, we can put an end to it.

MARTYRIS: Nothing happened.

ABDELFATAH: Tipping continues to have a lasting legacy, as many restaurant workers still make the same hourly wage that they've made since 1996 - $2.13 an hour, with the rest to be made up by tips. Last month, there was a push to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Pushback came from the restaurant industry, which signaled that raising wages would only cause more restaurants to suffer and close. That increase was ultimately left out of the COVID relief package.

MARTIN: Those were hosts of Throughline, Rund Abdelfatah and Ramtin Arablouei. You can listen to the whole episode wherever you listen to podcasts.

Copyright © 2021 NPR. Alle regte voorbehou. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR&rsquos programming is the audio record.


Share All sharing options for: The Tipping Debate Turns to the Tip Credit, and Whether Banning It Is Bad for Business

As the should-we-tip/shouldn't-we-tip argument continues to putter along, more voices are joining the debate. Today Andrew Rigie, executive director of the New York City Hospitality Alliance, adds his two cents in an op-ed in the Post arguing against a campaign to abolish "tip credit."

Here's how front of the house service is paid now: Servers are paid $5 an hour and are expected to make up the difference between that and the minimum wage with tips. Salaries that don't reach the minimum wage this way, are required by law to be supplemented by the restaurant's owners. (However, that doesn't always happen).

If that tip credit is eliminated, Rigie argues, "then labor costs to employ restaurant servers would nearly double. Local jobs and both new and existing restaurants would be placed on the chopping block." Restaurants would be forced to up their prices, which restaurateurs fear will simply drive away business. As an alternative, Rigie says, many are considering eliminating tipping altogether, and replacing it with a mandatory "administrative fee" added to a diner's bill. But doing so, Rigie argues, would mean "Thousands of hard-working New Yorkers would keep their jobs, but with considerably lower incomes," since tips can so often add up to much more than an hourly minimum wage.

Needless to say, it's a complex issue, but he and other pro-tippers are up against a growing group of people, like Dirt Candy's Amanda Cohen, who oppose tipping, saying it is a poor way to compensate people. Cohen recently wrote: "If you do a job, you should be paid a fair salary. Tipping is unfair to servers. If you do a job, you should be paid a fair salary."


Tipping Is an Abomination

When wealthy Americans brought home the practice of tipping from their European vacations in the late 19 th century, their countrymen considered it bribery. State legislatures quickly banned the practice. But restaurateurs, giddy at the prospect of passing labor costs directly to customers, eventually convinced Americans to accept tipping.

We had it right the first time. Tipping is a repugnant custom. It’s bad for consumers and terrible for workers. It perpetuates racism. Tipping isn’t even good for restaurants, because the legal morass surrounding gratuities results in scores of expensive lawsuits.

Tipping does not incentivize hard work. The factors that correlate most strongly to tip size have virtually nothing to do with the quality of service. Credit card tips are larger than cash tips. Large parties with sizable bills leave disproportionately small tips. We tip servers more if they tell us their names, touch us on the arm, or draw smiley faces on our checks. Quality of service has a laughably small impact on tip size. According to a 2000 study, a customer’s assessment of the server’s work only accounts for between 1 and 5 percent of the variation in tips at a restaurant.

Tipping also creates a racially charged feedback loop, based around the widely held assumption—explored in an episode of Louie, in the Oscar-winning film Crash, and elsewhere—that African-Americans tend to be subpar tippers. There seems to be some truth to this stereotype: African-Americans, on average, tip 3 percentage points less than white customers. The tipping gap between Hispanics and whites is smaller, but still discernible in studies. This creates an excuse for restaurant servers to prioritize the needs of certain ethnic groups over others.

Irrelevant or insidious factors will dominate the tipping equation until quality of work becomes the main driver of tip size, but that’s unlikely to happen. And tip size isn’t the real problem anyway. The real problem is that restaurants don’t pay their employees a living wage. The federal “tip credit” allows restaurants to pay their tipped employees as little as $2.13 per hour, as long as tips make up the shortfall—which turns a customer into a co-employer. Although federal and state law requires restaurants to ensure that tips bring employees up to minimum wage, few diners know that. (Hosts/hostesses, bussers, and food runners, who receive a small fraction of the servers’ tips, often fall short of minimum wage on some nights.) The tip credit has turned the gratuity into a moral obligation, and we ought to cut it from our statute books with a steak knife.

The only real beneficiary of the preposterously complicated tip credit is lawyers. Imagine what it’s like for a company running restaurants in multiple states. There’s no tip credit in some states, like California and Washington, where tipped employees must be paid the full minimum wage. Hawaii allows the tip credit only if the combined tip and cash wage surpass the statewide minimum hourly wage by 50 cents. New York and Connecticut have different minimum wages for servers, hotel employees, and bartenders.

Then you have to consider time that employees spend on activities not likely to yield tips. Applebee’s, for example, has suffered a series of legal setbacks in lawsuits brought by tipped employees seeking back pay for time spent cleaning toilets and washing glassware.

The laws regarding tip sharing and tip pooling, which occur in virtually every restaurant, are even more complicated. Federal law allows mandatory tip sharing, but only among employees who customarily receive either direct or indirect tips. That means servers, bussers, food runners, and hosts and hostesses can be required to pool their tips with each other, but not with managers. Unfortunately, the line between service and management is fuzzy in many restaurants, and differences between state laws further complicate matters. A California judge ordered Starbucks to pay $105 million in 2008 for forcing 100,000 baristas to share tips with supervisors. Last week, the New York Court of Appeals reached the opposite conclusion, ruling that New York law allows the arrangement. Chili’s has also lost a multimillion dollar judgment over tip sharing.

The entire mess is begging for some certainty and predictability. Restaurants need a clear set of rules to follow. Servers should have a steadier income stream. Hosts and bussers, who have relatively little interaction with customers, ought not to be involved in tipping at all. Customers need more clarity as well, instead of worrying at the end of a meal if the waiter, or your guests, approve of your 17 percent tip.

I’d like to propose a solution. First, ask your state and federal representatives to abolish the tip credit, which would turn tips back into actual gratuities: something given free of obligation. Second, announce your tipping practice to your server as soon as you sit down. Virtually every other employee in America knows how much they’ll be paid up front, and somehow the man who sells me shoes and the woman who does my dry cleaning still manage to provide adequate service. I have no doubt waiters and waitresses are the same. Finally, tip a flat, but reasonably generous, dollar amount per person in your party. Around 20 percent of Americans, mostly older people, tip a flat amount already, so it’s not exactly revolutionary. A server’s pay shouldn’t be linked to whether or not you have room for dessert.


Parent company of Olive Garden violates the Civil Rights Act with its tipping policies, activists say

Activists looking to eliminate the sub-minimum wage for tipped employees — a practice that they say keeps workers in poverty, encourages sexual harassment and leads to racial discrimination — are taking a new approach in their campaign to end the two-tiered wage system in America: They’re arguing the lower tipped wage, sometimes as little as $2.13 an hour, violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The first test of this strategy arrived Tuesday. One Fair Wage, a national worker-advocacy group, filed a federal complaint against Darden Restaurants Inc., one of the largest hospitality groups in the country, alleging the company’s practice of paying tipped workers a sub-minimum wage causes them to suffer more sexual harassment than non-tipped workers and leads employees of color to earn less in tips than their White co-workers. The practice, the group argues, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which “prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.”

Rich Jeffers, a senior director of communications for Darden, which includes such national chains as Olive Garden and the Capital Grille, said “these allegations are baseless” in a statement to The Washington Post. “Darden is a values-based company built on a culture of integrity and fairness, respect and caring, and a longstanding commitment to diversity and inclusion.”

One Fair Wage pursued its latest legal strategy on tipping after discovering a research paper written by an attorney who was pursuing a graduate degree at Harvard Law School. The paper made the argument that the sub-minimum wage violates the Civil Rights Act, based on tipping research conducted by, among others, professor Michael Lynn of Cornell University’s School of Hotel Administration.

The paper “resonated so strongly with what we had heard from workers for so long,” said Saru Jayaraman, president of One Fair Wage and a graduate of Yale Law School. It also fit into the larger cultural movement of many Americans coming to grips with the country’s long history of racial inequality.

The group decided to put the legal theory into practice by filing its complaint against Darden with the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission. In the past, the organization has helped put forth successful ballot initiatives to eliminate the two-tiered minimum wage in several jurisdictions, including Michigan and Washington, D.C., only to have them undermined by legislatures and city councils. In 2018, the D.C. Council repealed Initiative 77, which passed with 55 percent of the vote and would have gradually eliminated the two-tiered system in the city.

“Obviously, it’s frustrating when legislators overturn the will of the people, not just in D.C., but in Michigan and Maine. We won it in all three places,” said Jayaraman. “I will say that the fact that we keep winning and the legislators have to keep overturning it should be a clear indication that there’s overwhelming public support for this issue.”

One Fair Wage decided to target Darden not just because of its size — the company employs about 125,000 people, down from about 185,000 pre-pandemic, said Jeffers — but also because Darden and the National Restaurant Association have actively lobbied to maintain the sub-minimum wage. (The sub-minimum wage allows restaurants to pay tipped employees as little as $2.13 an hour, as long as tips cover the remainder of a jurisdiction’s full minimum wage if not, the employer is responsible to cover the gap.)

“I am not saying that Darden is much worse than the rest of the industry,” said Jayaraman. “I’m saying they’re emblematic, and they’re a leader in maintaining these standards. I think what we’re filing today is very, frankly, symptomatic of the whole industry. It’s just that Darden is a particularly clear example of what this industry has not just tolerated, but perpetuated for too long.”

Jeffers painted a different picture of tipped workers at Darden restaurants. He said, across all company brands, tipped workers earn more than $20 per hour on average, and have very low turnover rates. “Fifty percent better than the industry average,” Jeffers said. More than half of the company’s managers come from the hourly ranks, he added, and 52 percent of those promoted from hourly positions are women and 32 percent are people of color.