[workingon]

While I wouldnt have tipped this person, you still tip during regular 'bad service' (like slowness or burnt food or whatever), because even though things didnt meet your expectations doesn't mean you should take advantage of the fact that the state makes it legal to pay servers only $2 an hour. The prices of your shit meal were lower because of this, so you should at least make up the difference to a minimum livable wage, which is the cost it would've been if the state wasnt retrograde.

Unless of course you think people who are bad servers don't deserve to make minimum wage.

[gambiting]

>>Unless of course you think people who are bad servers don't deserve to make minimum wage.

I think that it shouldn't be the customers responsibility to even know what the server is making, and logically it shouldn't be their responsibility to make sure they are paid X or Y. You come in, order food, pay for the food, leave. The business owner should be responsible to keep their employees compensated well enough that they don't want to leave.

But like I said in another comment - the situation in US is a result of literally decades of social conditioning, where the population has been told by business owners that it's their(customers) responsibility to make sure that service workers are compensated well enough to not be in poverty, and it's your personal responsibility to tip or the person will starve.

It's gotten to the point where people make this argument in absolute earnest, and truly believe what they say, like it's the most obvious thing in the world. It really is a marvel of social engineering, and a boon for American businesses I'm sure.

>>because even though things didnt meet your expectations doesn't mean you should take advantage of the fact that the state makes it legal to pay servers only $2 an hour

That actually furthers my point above - the side taking advantage of $2 minimum wage is the employer, not the customer.

[RHSeeger]

>> Unless of course you think people who are bad servers don't deserve to make minimum wage.

> It's gotten to the point where people make this argument in absolute earnest

Because the way the pay works at the moment is the way the pay works at the moment, and we tip based on that. The fact that people believe the pay _shouldn't_ work that way is no excuse for not tipping your wait staff at all _today_.

> That actually furthers my point above - the side taking advantage of $2 minimum wage is the employer, not the customer.

Not really, at least not in most cases. If tips went away and the employer paid more, the prices of the meals would go up to compensate. The restaurant owners aren't making more money because of the current system; most of them aren't making a large profit. The owners aren't paying sub-minimum wage because they want to pocket the difference; they're doing it because to do otherwise would drive them out of business (because their competition is also doing it). You need to change the rules for everyone in order for almost anyone to do better.

[workingon]

Youre just bucking the responsibility thats put on you. It sucks the state makes it that way, but youre only hurting other people. If you disagree with tipping then dont go to a restaraunt in a state that requires it. Your self righteous arguments fall on deaf ears of people who work for tips and have to put up with jerks like you.

There are so many instances where the government allows people to be exploited here in America. If youre taking advantage of that and exploiting them -- you are a part of the problem -- it is that simple.

[ctrlmeta]

> Unless of course you think people who are bad servers don't deserve to make minimum wage.

Why should the responsibility of paying a bonus (a tip) to the server fall on the customer? Why shouldn't the business be held responsible for paying them the bonus? As someone from Europe, I find it difficult to wrap my head around the fact that it is somehow customer's responsibility to pay them a bonus/tip even if there has been a bad service. In my mind it should clearly be the responsibility of the business to pay them what they deserve.

[lazyasciiart]

Those are very solid arguments for not allowing businesses to pay less than minimum wage, or for (as an individual) not visiting places that allow businesses to pay less than minimum wage. They aren’t terribly relevant to the situation where you just ate somewhere that does pay less than minimum wage.

[tsukikage]

> The prices of your shit meal were lower because of this

Can one really claim that when, in the same breath, one also claims tips are near-mandatory?

What this situation actually means is that the business entices you in with a low price in the menu, but that price is only tangentially related to the amount I end up paying when it comes time to pay. The thing that is "lower" is not the amount of money that leaves my wallet at the end of the meal, and I am never told up front what that total will be. This is actually true of most transactions in the US, because taxes also work in a similar fashion.

Elsewhere, the norms are different. In some places, when, as a customer, you see a price for goods and services, that is exactly the amount of money you pay; it is the responsibility of whoever is setting the price to set it at an appropriate level so they can appropriately compensate whatever third parties they need to compensate. In other places, the norm might be to haggle; but even there you know what the agreed total will be before you receive the goods or services.

That said, the US approach is actually not entirely an unfamiliar experience to Europeans: budget airlines operate on the same principle of "quote low price up front then the customer pays way more at the end for things that are technically but not really optional" here - and we hate those just as much.

[madeofpalk]

> doesn't mean you should take advantage of the fact that the state makes it legal to pay servers only $2 an hour.

Instead the state and the restaurant should take advantage of you and the employee?

[RHSeeger]

If the waitstaff was payed more and tips were removed from the equation, the meal would cost more. It doesn't wind up costing you more to tip than is the system was changed; unless you tip very well (in which case, you might be one of those people that would tip even if the system was changed).

[raverbashing]

> Unless of course you think people who are bad servers don't deserve to make minimum wage.

No but I do think the establishment has the responsibility to list the actual price of services rendered

[yccs27]

I'd be inclined to agree, if the the tips didn't factor into the minimum wage calculation - so that in the medium-term, higher average tips ddidn't just lead to lower pay from the employer.

Of course this is coming from an European, so the whole tipping culture is foreign to me.

[mnau]

Incredible amount of goods or services I consume pay $2/hour, if they are lucky. Bangladesh, India, take your pick. I certainly take advatage fo that. Why should I pay more?

It's not my job to fix laws and it's not my job to make sure a person has a good wage.

[pasquinelli]

it's not really the point, but there's no reason to think your meal was cheaper because of the low wages. if you're the restaurant owner, if your labor costs suddenly went down, why would you lower your prices?

[RHSeeger]

I have no doubt at all that, if owners suddenly had to pay waitstaff more, the prices of meals would go up. Because the owners need to make money too, and most of them have pretty thin margins.