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.
You keep saying the same thing like it's relevant.
You still haven't named another even prime, flying mammal, or Western nation that doesn't use metric.
Let's just focus on the last one: why should I have to learn yards and Fahrenheit and gallons when EVERY other Western country uses metric? No other Western country forces their children to learn that system, to the point you can't understand standard signs and measures without 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
You keep saying the same thing like it's relevant.
You still haven't named another even prime, flying mammal, or Western nation that doesn't use metric.
Let's just focus on the last one: why should I have to learn yards and Fahrenheit and gallons when EVERY other Western country uses metric? No other Western country forces their children to learn that system, to the point you can't understand standard signs and measures without it.
It's the same argument.