Tipping had devolved from customers saying “I’ll give something extra for extra service” to restaurants saying “since you pay for the food, why don’t you pay for the staff too?”
Only real way to get rid of this culture is to ban it to start. Workers need to demand living wages at the same time as ban comes into effect.
Only real way to get rid of this culture is to ban it to start.
A ban would be a bit extreme. Is tipping banned anywhere?
For me, the fix is to establish a fixed tip like some parts of Europe used to have. E.g. $1—2 per person for good service regardless of bill. This would accomplish two things:
The tip cannot be an income supplement (thus wages increase if the resto wants to have staff)
There is still a quality control signal in place
Tipping isn’t bad. Being underpaid is bad. If we as consumers want to add a little more for good service, I don’t see a problem.
The two are at odds with each other; that’s the problem.
I think in this case, “banned” is referring to “paying workers below minimum hourly wage because they’re expected to make up the difference by convincing our patrons to generously donate +20% of their dinner bill”, not “citizens will be fined/incarcerated if they give someone money of their own free will”
Because it logically follows. If the businesses have to stop relying on customers to pay their employees what they are worth. Someone should have to pay their employees a valid living wage. And that logically would be the company.
Tipping had devolved from customers saying “I’ll give something extra for extra service” to restaurants saying “since you pay for the food, why don’t you pay for the staff too?”
Only real way to get rid of this culture is to ban it to start. Workers need to demand living wages at the same time as ban comes into effect.
A ban would be a bit extreme. Is tipping banned anywhere?
For me, the fix is to establish a fixed tip like some parts of Europe used to have. E.g. $1—2 per person for good service regardless of bill. This would accomplish two things:
The two are at odds with each other; that’s the problem.
I think in this case, “banned” is referring to “paying workers below minimum hourly wage because they’re expected to make up the difference by convincing our patrons to generously donate +20% of their dinner bill”, not “citizens will be fined/incarcerated if they give someone money of their own free will”
That would make sense, but then why did they follow that with “Workers need to demand living wages at the same time as ban comes into effect”?
Because it logically follows. If the businesses have to stop relying on customers to pay their employees what they are worth. Someone should have to pay their employees a valid living wage. And that logically would be the company.