Don't hate the player, the owner is the one to blame
If I went up to a kid and was like 'hey kid, can I buy your bike for $50' and he was like 'yeah sure that sounds great I agree' ... I'd be pretty fucking pissed off if he was going around telling everyone I ripped him off when I bought his bike and trying to pressure people into giving him an additional donation.
For fucks sake kid, just say no to the $50. Say yes when you actually agree to the pay. It's really not hard, and it's all completely and totally optional.
Yes and no. It's a vicious circle, why would an employer, the owner, start paying a proper salary if they dont have to, no one else does, and they would probably go out of business by doing so?
At some point the player needs to put the foot down and start making demands. Few rights were handed out for free throughout history, usually someone need to wake up and start fighting for them.
The US has some catch up to do, its not only waiters. White-collar folks could do better too.. I've (Europe/Australia) heard from too many American colleagues and managers that they wished they also had paid sick leave, parental leave, so much PTO, and long service leave (look it up, an Australian thing, a few extra weeks off after a few years of service, hoe many depends on the state you live in).
At some point the player needs to put the foot down and start making demands.
And if you're in an at-will employment state, they can fire you for that. Then poison you to all the other places in town where you might get a restaurant job.
I don't think you understand how difficult it is to do any sort of labor action in the U.S. It's frankly amazing that any of the Starbucks franchises have been able to unionize.
I would love everyone to be in a union, but it's too easy to stop employers from quashing that idea. They can and will continue to get away with paying waiters less than they should and there are enough people desperate for work to take them up on that offer.
So I will continue to tip. It is not the fault of someone who just needs a job that they aren't being paid what they deserve. The least I can do is give them a hand.
Seems to me like this is happening in all 50 something states though, not just the ones with special laws, we sure that's the problem?
Of course it is. Why would you expect different states to have different tipping policies? How would people remember what or whether to tip in each state?
Believe it or not, non-union restaurant businesses, being the vast majority in the U.S., have a lot more clout than unions.
How would people remember what or whether to tip in each state?
The people you're interacting with on this forum are more than likely from more populous states definitionally. If you look up those states, they likely make way more than the 2.13$ that you fear they do.
I don't remember fearing they make $2.13 an hour.
I fear they don't make what minimum wage should be at the very least- $15 an hour.
This country is wide and disparate. 15$ in NYC is not equivalent to 15$ in the middle of nowhere Utah.
This is why states can choose to make minimum wage whatever they want. Simply blanket stating that 15$/hr for everyone is silly. But lets realize that many states DO require around 15$/hr (or close enough where a 1 dollar tip per table would net them 15 really easily)... and those states actually hold a significant portion of the population of the USA... meaning that most of the people you're talking to here on Lemmy are LIKELY from those states. Does someone who lives in a house in the middle of nowhere Utah have the same requirements for income? You can look on zillow right now... There's houses that appear fully functional for sale at $30,000 (357 results for less than 50k). Does that person need 15$/hr? Just because you're used to prices where you live, and demand those wages at your location, doesn't mean that those numbers make sense at other place in the USA.
So the real question... Where you live... on the table... are they already close to 15$, or close enough that a 5-10% tip which is what used to be customary would still get them over your magical 15$/hr number?
We have a federal minimum wage. Are you really not aware of that?
And no, it is nowhere near $15 in Indiana.
We have a federal minimum wage. Are you really not aware of that?
Yes, which is completely superseded by the states minimum wage. Which is what I said in my post if you bothered to read. What about my post makes it seem like I don't know that a federal minimum wage exists?
And no, it is nowhere near $15 in Indiana.
So looking at Zillow, there's 358 houses in Indiana that are less than 50k to purchase (over 1000, at less than 100k)... Why do you need 15$/hr? What makes 15/hr "livable" when a house that typically takes up 30-50% of a persons monthly expense cost only 50k?
Yes, which is completely superseded by the states minimum wage.
Are you under the impression that state minimum wage can be lower than the federal minimum wage?
So looking at Zillow, there’s 358 houses in Indiana that are less than 50k to purchase (over 1000, at less than 100k)… Why do you need 15$/hr? What makes 15/hr “livable” when a house that typically takes up 30-50% of a persons monthly expense cost only 50k?
Got it, you're one of those people who think the poor don't deserve anything but the bare minimum society can possibly offer.
And, of course, those 358 houses are evenly distributed across Indiana so that the only 358 people in Indiana being paid minimum wage can afford them. That's exactly how things work.
Keep in mind that this is availability RIGHT NOW. Meaning that the market has availability on TOP of what's already occupied... and doesn't include rentals. The market is NOT saturated.
those 358 houses are evenly distributed across Indiana
Looks pretty centered around population centers to me.
who think the poor don’t deserve anything
Right... which is why I'm advocating here that they should be able to buy a house? That's the bare minimum to you? Jesus dude... you're really off the mark here.
All 358 of them?
Because only 358 people in Indiana are paid minimum wage?
Also, I have no idea how you calculated those numbers, but there is not a chance in hell that someone who makes less than $16,000 a year can afford a house. They can barely afford food. And who would give them a mortgage?
$16,000 a year is below the poverty line.
And yes, getting everyone into a home should be the bare minimum. Sadly, many people aren't in them, including many people who work for minimum wage. Because, believe it or not, very few people will rent to you if you make that little.
I love how you say "I think the poor deserve things because I want 358 of them to own a house" and not "I want them all to be paid better."
How would people remember what or whether to tip in each state?
Maybe not in each state but maybe in the one they reside, where it's most likely they'll go out eating?
I'm not familiar with at will employment in the us but you seem to imply it's inly in some states. What about the others.
And in the end, doesnt really matter how difficult it is for service workers to fight for those rights, no one else is going to do it for them which was my original point. What i do know is that the US has a history of people standing up and fighting for rights, it being difficult hasnt stopped others before.
People travel.
Is it really fair for the servers to be paid different amounts based on whether the person in the restaurant is from the area and therefore knows whether or not to tip? Isn't that worse for them than it is now?
Is it fair for the servers not to be paid by their employers?
I'm at a loss mate. I'm having these conversations here on lemmy about us-unique problems that have pretty straightforward solutions (and note that I am not saying easy, but pretty obvious how there is one way to fix them, and pretty much one way only). All I hear back is weird stuff, of course it's not fair to be paid different by locals than non locals but how did we even get down this rabbit hole? Everyone here seems to agree that tipping is stupid, that servers should unionise or at least ask for better treatment. Wtf, did Rosa Parker spend time arguing about how black people in some state had it worse than other states?
The same seems to happen when discussing about gun control. Not easy, what worked in other countries like Australia wouldn't work here. But we need guns to defend ourselves from gun nuts. What about trans women that need to defend themselves (a real convo I had with someone, probably still in my comments history).
You know what? In other countries waiters are paid minimum wages, we barely suffer from tips issues, have universal healthcare, guns are pretty hard to obtain, mass shooting are a once in a century issue, our kids don't do drills at school or have to go through metal detectors, white collar jobs have paid sick leave on top of 20-35 holidays days a year and if you need to fight nazis you can hit them with a reo bar.
I'm not bragging, it's sad to see how bad the US has it and even when discussing with people that agree in general with you (you seem to be in favour of unions etc) there's always an obstacle or something that "non Americans don't understand", as i said in other comments you can wait for politicians or your employer to give you more rights or money but that rarely (never?) works.
No, of course it's not fair. That's exactly why I tip. Because it's not fair for them and they need help.
I can't change that for them. They probably can't even change it.
That's just not how America works unfortunately. America is totally beholden to corporate interests.
Also, saying "they do it in other countries" as if that means it's possible in the U.S. when other countries have totally different laws is silly. Australia was able to get rid of guns because they don't have guns enshrined in their founding document.
Wrong Australia was able to get rid of guns because everyone was shocked about what happened with a mass shooting, had the right to bear firearms been enshrined in the constitution there would have been a discussion about making a change to it, hasn't the American constitution ever been amended?
Any more reasons why changes can't happen there? You guys fucking overcame slavery and black people managed to get equal rights (I am sure a few naysayers in the sixties were sceptical about that). Give yourselves more credit
Yes. The American Constitution has been Amended. It takes a 2/3 majority of congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states.
Which is why amendments are almost never passed.
Again, you really don't understand how laws work here.
The 27th Amendment, the most recent one to be passed, was about congressional salaries. It had been proposed in 1791. It passed in 1992.
And you think we could realistically get guns out of the U.S. Constitution?
You are right, maybe it's impossible to solve any problems, we should stop bothering. If only someone had told Rosa back then she probably wouldn't have wasted her time for nothing :)
When did I say it was impossible? It's happened 27 times. I said it's not something realistic, at least not at the moment.
Also, what does Rosa Parks have to do with amending the constitution? She wasn't in the U.S. government and there were no constitutional amendments based on her heroism. If you're going to reference U.S. history, it's best not to do it wrongly.
Mentioned her before in this thread,before we went down another rabbit hole of impossible / not realistic to change tour constitution. Wasn't my intention to discuss constitution amendments, we ended up there after I pointed out that discussions about tipping (and universal healthcare, gun control etc etc) always end up in someone bringing up some reasons why bUT that workeD everywhere eLSe oN thE PlaNet but It Can't worK Here becAuse blah blah.
I mentioned her not in relation to constitution amendments nor gun control (nor tipping, which ia where we started) just because she didn't make up excuses about, too hard, unrealistic all the other blah blah I keep hearing here about all the issues the US have
If you didn't want to discuss constitutional amendments, you shouldn't have brought up something that would require such a herculean effort to make happen that it is not realistic for the foreseeable future and likely wouldn't even get ratified for decades even if somehow you could get that many Republicans and Democrats on board as your example.
Don't hate the player, the owner is the one to blame
If I went up to a kid and was like 'hey kid, can I buy your bike for $50' and he was like 'yeah sure that sounds great I agree' ... I'd be pretty fucking pissed off if he was going around telling everyone I ripped him off when I bought his bike and trying to pressure people into giving him an additional donation.
For fucks sake kid, just say no to the $50. Say yes when you actually agree to the pay. It's really not hard, and it's all completely and totally optional.
Yes and no. It's a vicious circle, why would an employer, the owner, start paying a proper salary if they dont have to, no one else does, and they would probably go out of business by doing so?
At some point the player needs to put the foot down and start making demands. Few rights were handed out for free throughout history, usually someone need to wake up and start fighting for them.
The US has some catch up to do, its not only waiters. White-collar folks could do better too.. I've (Europe/Australia) heard from too many American colleagues and managers that they wished they also had paid sick leave, parental leave, so much PTO, and long service leave (look it up, an Australian thing, a few extra weeks off after a few years of service, hoe many depends on the state you live in).
And if you're in an at-will employment state, they can fire you for that. Then poison you to all the other places in town where you might get a restaurant job.
I don't think you understand how difficult it is to do any sort of labor action in the U.S. It's frankly amazing that any of the Starbucks franchises have been able to unionize.
I would love everyone to be in a union, but it's too easy to stop employers from quashing that idea. They can and will continue to get away with paying waiters less than they should and there are enough people desperate for work to take them up on that offer.
So I will continue to tip. It is not the fault of someone who just needs a job that they aren't being paid what they deserve. The least I can do is give them a hand.
Seems to me like this is happening in all 50 something states though, not just the ones with special laws, we sure that's the problem?
Of course it is. Why would you expect different states to have different tipping policies? How would people remember what or whether to tip in each state?
Believe it or not, non-union restaurant businesses, being the vast majority in the U.S., have a lot more clout than unions.
The tip "laws" are indeed different per state... and the onus is put on the business owner as it should be.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/minimum-wage/tipped
The people you're interacting with on this forum are more than likely from more populous states definitionally. If you look up those states, they likely make way more than the 2.13$ that you fear they do.
I don't remember fearing they make $2.13 an hour.
I fear they don't make what minimum wage should be at the very least- $15 an hour.
This country is wide and disparate. 15$ in NYC is not equivalent to 15$ in the middle of nowhere Utah.
This is why states can choose to make minimum wage whatever they want. Simply blanket stating that 15$/hr for everyone is silly. But lets realize that many states DO require around 15$/hr (or close enough where a 1 dollar tip per table would net them 15 really easily)... and those states actually hold a significant portion of the population of the USA... meaning that most of the people you're talking to here on Lemmy are LIKELY from those states. Does someone who lives in a house in the middle of nowhere Utah have the same requirements for income? You can look on zillow right now... There's houses that appear fully functional for sale at $30,000 (357 results for less than 50k). Does that person need 15$/hr? Just because you're used to prices where you live, and demand those wages at your location, doesn't mean that those numbers make sense at other place in the USA.
So the real question... Where you live... on the table... are they already close to 15$, or close enough that a 5-10% tip which is what used to be customary would still get them over your magical 15$/hr number?
We have a federal minimum wage. Are you really not aware of that?
And no, it is nowhere near $15 in Indiana.
Yes, which is completely superseded by the states minimum wage. Which is what I said in my post if you bothered to read. What about my post makes it seem like I don't know that a federal minimum wage exists?
So looking at Zillow, there's 358 houses in Indiana that are less than 50k to purchase (over 1000, at less than 100k)... Why do you need 15$/hr? What makes 15/hr "livable" when a house that typically takes up 30-50% of a persons monthly expense cost only 50k?
Are you under the impression that state minimum wage can be lower than the federal minimum wage?
Got it, you're one of those people who think the poor don't deserve anything but the bare minimum society can possibly offer.
And, of course, those 358 houses are evenly distributed across Indiana so that the only 358 people in Indiana being paid minimum wage can afford them. That's exactly how things work.
With minimum wage in Indiana being $7.25,
https://www.zillow.com/mortgage-calculator/house-affordability/
You can afford a house up to $67,530.
Keep in mind that this is availability RIGHT NOW. Meaning that the market has availability on TOP of what's already occupied... and doesn't include rentals. The market is NOT saturated.
Looks pretty centered around population centers to me.
Right... which is why I'm advocating here that they should be able to buy a house? That's the bare minimum to you? Jesus dude... you're really off the mark here.
All 358 of them?
Because only 358 people in Indiana are paid minimum wage?
Also, I have no idea how you calculated those numbers, but there is not a chance in hell that someone who makes less than $16,000 a year can afford a house. They can barely afford food. And who would give them a mortgage?
$16,000 a year is below the poverty line.
And yes, getting everyone into a home should be the bare minimum. Sadly, many people aren't in them, including many people who work for minimum wage. Because, believe it or not, very few people will rent to you if you make that little.
I love how you say "I think the poor deserve things because I want 358 of them to own a house" and not "I want them all to be paid better."
Maybe not in each state but maybe in the one they reside, where it's most likely they'll go out eating? I'm not familiar with at will employment in the us but you seem to imply it's inly in some states. What about the others.
And in the end, doesnt really matter how difficult it is for service workers to fight for those rights, no one else is going to do it for them which was my original point. What i do know is that the US has a history of people standing up and fighting for rights, it being difficult hasnt stopped others before.
People travel.
Is it really fair for the servers to be paid different amounts based on whether the person in the restaurant is from the area and therefore knows whether or not to tip? Isn't that worse for them than it is now?
Is it fair for the servers not to be paid by their employers?
I'm at a loss mate. I'm having these conversations here on lemmy about us-unique problems that have pretty straightforward solutions (and note that I am not saying easy, but pretty obvious how there is one way to fix them, and pretty much one way only). All I hear back is weird stuff, of course it's not fair to be paid different by locals than non locals but how did we even get down this rabbit hole? Everyone here seems to agree that tipping is stupid, that servers should unionise or at least ask for better treatment. Wtf, did Rosa Parker spend time arguing about how black people in some state had it worse than other states?
The same seems to happen when discussing about gun control. Not easy, what worked in other countries like Australia wouldn't work here. But we need guns to defend ourselves from gun nuts. What about trans women that need to defend themselves (a real convo I had with someone, probably still in my comments history).
You know what? In other countries waiters are paid minimum wages, we barely suffer from tips issues, have universal healthcare, guns are pretty hard to obtain, mass shooting are a once in a century issue, our kids don't do drills at school or have to go through metal detectors, white collar jobs have paid sick leave on top of 20-35 holidays days a year and if you need to fight nazis you can hit them with a reo bar. I'm not bragging, it's sad to see how bad the US has it and even when discussing with people that agree in general with you (you seem to be in favour of unions etc) there's always an obstacle or something that "non Americans don't understand", as i said in other comments you can wait for politicians or your employer to give you more rights or money but that rarely (never?) works.
No, of course it's not fair. That's exactly why I tip. Because it's not fair for them and they need help.
I can't change that for them. They probably can't even change it.
That's just not how America works unfortunately. America is totally beholden to corporate interests.
Also, saying "they do it in other countries" as if that means it's possible in the U.S. when other countries have totally different laws is silly. Australia was able to get rid of guns because they don't have guns enshrined in their founding document.
Wrong Australia was able to get rid of guns because everyone was shocked about what happened with a mass shooting, had the right to bear firearms been enshrined in the constitution there would have been a discussion about making a change to it, hasn't the American constitution ever been amended? Any more reasons why changes can't happen there? You guys fucking overcame slavery and black people managed to get equal rights (I am sure a few naysayers in the sixties were sceptical about that). Give yourselves more credit
Yes. The American Constitution has been Amended. It takes a 2/3 majority of congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states.
Which is why amendments are almost never passed.
Again, you really don't understand how laws work here.
The 27th Amendment, the most recent one to be passed, was about congressional salaries. It had been proposed in 1791. It passed in 1992.
And you think we could realistically get guns out of the U.S. Constitution?
You are right, maybe it's impossible to solve any problems, we should stop bothering. If only someone had told Rosa back then she probably wouldn't have wasted her time for nothing :)
When did I say it was impossible? It's happened 27 times. I said it's not something realistic, at least not at the moment.
Also, what does Rosa Parks have to do with amending the constitution? She wasn't in the U.S. government and there were no constitutional amendments based on her heroism. If you're going to reference U.S. history, it's best not to do it wrongly.
Mentioned her before in this thread,before we went down another rabbit hole of impossible / not realistic to change tour constitution. Wasn't my intention to discuss constitution amendments, we ended up there after I pointed out that discussions about tipping (and universal healthcare, gun control etc etc) always end up in someone bringing up some reasons why bUT that workeD everywhere eLSe oN thE PlaNet but It Can't worK Here becAuse blah blah.
I mentioned her not in relation to constitution amendments nor gun control (nor tipping, which ia where we started) just because she didn't make up excuses about, too hard, unrealistic all the other blah blah I keep hearing here about all the issues the US have
If you didn't want to discuss constitutional amendments, you shouldn't have brought up something that would require such a herculean effort to make happen that it is not realistic for the foreseeable future and likely wouldn't even get ratified for decades even if somehow you could get that many Republicans and Democrats on board as your example.
Even Bernie Sanders is against a gun ban. He wants more gun control, but he's not interested in banning guns. Sorry.