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.
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.
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.
Answer the question then.
Name one other job (that isn’t in the food service industry) where the buyers subsidize the worker’s salary voluntarily. To the point where, without tips, the worker would NOT make minimum wage.
Name one even prime number other than 2. Name one flying mammal other than a bat. Name one Western country that doesn't use metric other than the US.
What point are you trying to make? This isn't some gotcha, you are making pointless statements. 2 is still prime, bats still fly, the US still doesn't use metric. Calling out a situation as being unique doesn't make it stop being what it is.
Answer the question then.
Name one other job (that isn’t in the food service industry) where the buyers subsidize the worker’s salary voluntarily. To the point where, without tips, the worker would NOT make minimum wage.
Unless you’re a bot or child, in which case I understand your deficiency in understanding the question.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Answer the question then.
Name one other job (that isn’t in the food service industry) where the buyers subsidize the worker’s salary voluntarily. To the point where, without tips, the worker would NOT make minimum wage.
Name one even prime number other than 2. Name one flying mammal other than a bat. Name one Western country that doesn't use metric other than the US.
What point are you trying to make? This isn't some gotcha, you are making pointless statements. 2 is still prime, bats still fly, the US still doesn't use metric. Calling out a situation as being unique doesn't make it stop being what it is.
Answer the question then.
Name one other job (that isn’t in the food service industry) where the buyers subsidize the worker’s salary voluntarily. To the point where, without tips, the worker would NOT make minimum wage.
Unless you’re a bot or child, in which case I understand your deficiency in understanding the question.
https://slrpnk.net/post/5625534
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!
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.
InIt 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.