Export thread
Tips and the Service Industry.
#1
Espy
Espy
I know we've had some great rages here about tipping and people who love to tip, people who think tipping is for dumbasses and people who love to cow-tip, but this is a new one:
A local restaurant management group has had the news leaked that they intend to start taking 2% of waiters Credit Card tips. They say it is to help cover the cost of credit card processing. This will affect around 150+ waitstaff who work for their various restaurants at minimum wage.
Before people say, "Why don't they just raise prices?", well thats happened as well.
So what say you halforums? Good idea? Bad idea? Seem reasonable or reason to revolt? Is there a legal issues here? Does the management have the right to that money?
If you work in the service industry your views have particular weight here since this could be you at some point so please note the different polling options.
A local restaurant management group has had the news leaked that they intend to start taking 2% of waiters Credit Card tips. They say it is to help cover the cost of credit card processing. This will affect around 150+ waitstaff who work for their various restaurants at minimum wage.
Before people say, "Why don't they just raise prices?", well thats happened as well.
So what say you halforums? Good idea? Bad idea? Seem reasonable or reason to revolt? Is there a legal issues here? Does the management have the right to that money?
If you work in the service industry your views have particular weight here since this could be you at some point so please note the different polling options.
#2
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
As a server and bartender for many years, I can tell you that a very large portion of servers do NOT get minimum wage + tips. If a server reports their tips and make a certain amount, the restarurant will withdraw the minimum wage and pay them nothing. I can't tell you for how many years I recieved a check with a big VOID where the amount should be. Now the Credit Card companies are going to dip into that too? Servers are already one of the lowest rungs on the totem pole as far as wages are concerned and now this? Count me in the 100% against category.
#3
Chibibar
Chibibar
I use to work as a waitstaff at various places. Base page in Texas is $2.13 and hour and that hasn't change in a long time until this year. I think it is up to $2.35/hr
I can tell you I pretty much survive on tips. $2.13 an hour? that goes to my taxes and such. Dipping another 2% on waitstaff is a low blow since the business is RAISING pricing to cover their CC cost (and other things)
I'm totally against this.
I can tell you I pretty much survive on tips. $2.13 an hour? that goes to my taxes and such. Dipping another 2% on waitstaff is a low blow since the business is RAISING pricing to cover their CC cost (and other things)
I'm totally against this.
#4
Espy
Espy
This is true, thats why many don't report all their tips.As a server and bartender for many years, I can tell you that a very large portion of servers do NOT get minimum wage + tips. If a server reports their tips and make a certain amount, the restarurant will withdraw the minimum wage and pay them nothing. I can't tell you for how many years I recieved a check with a big VOID where the amount should be. Now the Credit Card companies are going to dip into that too? Servers are already one of the lowest rungs on the totem pole as far as wages are concerned and now this? Count me in the 100% against category.
#5
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
Yet if you don't report your tips, you get shit on when income tax season comes around. It's lose-lose.
#6
Espy
Espy
Sorry, I changed the poll, for some reason it left out the other 2 options.
#7
Chibibar
Chibibar
Cash baby. If it is credit card tip, I do report it (no way around it) but if it cash, generally I don't report itYet if you don't report your tips, you get shit on when income tax season comes around. It's lose-lose.
#8
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
I'd rather lose out on the extra $20 a check to get a 500-700$ check on income tax returns. I reported full tips.
Added at: 15:33
Not to mention if you ever needed to apply for a loan, if you didn't report your full tips, your total income looked pathetic and qualifying for anything would be next to impossible.
Added at: 15:33
Not to mention if you ever needed to apply for a loan, if you didn't report your full tips, your total income looked pathetic and qualifying for anything would be next to impossible.
#9
Chibibar
Chibibar
Heh. luckily those days are WAY behind me (over 20 years) but yea. You should report full but man, those were hard times.I'd rather lose out on the extra $20 a check to get a 500-700$ check on income tax returns. I reported full tips.
Added at: 15:33
Not to mention if you ever needed to apply for a loan, if you didn't report your full tips, your total income looked pathetic and qualifying for anything would be next to impossible.
#10
strawman
strawman
Credit card processing fees are 1.5% to 3%, so I can understand the restaurant passing on the cost of the tip's fees to the waitstaff. Even if they receive a $20 tip on a $100 meal, the waitstaff is only down by $0.40 for that tip. The restaurant still has to pay the $1.00 fee for their $100 worth of CC processing for that order.
Do they expect the employer to pay the full credit card processing fee for their tips? If they were salaried, then sure, but they are receiving cash directly from the customer - except in this case they are forcing the employer to pay for the credit card machines, and the fixed fees (monthly and per transaction). It would be no different if they each carried their own credit card machine around and had their tip run through that (say, square, or paypal, etc) and the food costs run through the employer's machine.
Why should the restaurant cover it?
Do they expect the employer to pay the full credit card processing fee for their tips? If they were salaried, then sure, but they are receiving cash directly from the customer - except in this case they are forcing the employer to pay for the credit card machines, and the fixed fees (monthly and per transaction). It would be no different if they each carried their own credit card machine around and had their tip run through that (say, square, or paypal, etc) and the food costs run through the employer's machine.
Why should the restaurant cover it?
#11
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
Because the average waitstaff waiter makes less than $18,000 a year?
Added at: 15:48
or in a large majority of cases (of my personal circle) less than $15,000?
Added at: 15:48
or in a large majority of cases (of my personal circle) less than $15,000?
#12
strawman
strawman
And? Why does that bear on whether the restaurant should cover their credit card processing expenses?
#13
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
Because according to alot of polls that's nearly if not already poverty levels. Should they be taxed further because their employer, who already takes away their regular paycheck due to their tips, doesn't want to cover it?
#14
strawman
Then the problem isn't that the restaurant is charging them $8/month to process their tip transactions, the problem is that they need a job that will support them.
If they are working full time (40/hr week) then $18k is the minimum they should be getting, as well as medical and other benefits. If they are working less than full time, they need a second job.
If $100/year is going to make or break them, they should switch careers.
Did they not know that going into waiting was not going to make them much money?
strawman
They're working full time (ie, 40 hours a week) and they are only making $18,000 per year, and they have no other means of assistance (school funds, other work, spouse, family, etc)?Because according to alot of polls that's nearly if not already poverty levels. Should they be taxed further because their employer, who already takes away their regular paycheck due to their tips, doesn't want to cover it?
Then the problem isn't that the restaurant is charging them $8/month to process their tip transactions, the problem is that they need a job that will support them.
If they are working full time (40/hr week) then $18k is the minimum they should be getting, as well as medical and other benefits. If they are working less than full time, they need a second job.
If $100/year is going to make or break them, they should switch careers.
Did they not know that going into waiting was not going to make them much money?
#15
blotsfan
blotsfan
The restaurant should make people pay more if they spend with a credit card if they really can't afford the hit. I know if I ever went to that restaurant, I'd tip with cash.
#16
makare
makare
Most people do that job because they can't get another one. It isn't many people's life ambition.
#17
blotsfan
blotsfan
Sorry for the double post but sometimes people can't find a better job.They're working full time (ie, 40 hours a week) and they are only making $18,000 per year, and they have no other means of assistance (school funds, other work, spouse, family, etc)?
Then the problem isn't that the restaurant is charging them $8/month to process their tip transactions, the problem is that they need a job that will support them.
If they are working full time (40/hr week) then $18k is the minimum they should be getting, as well as medical and other benefits. If they are working less than full time, they need a second job.
If $100/year is going to make or break them, they should switch careers.
Did they not know that going into waiting was not going to make them much money?
#18
Chibibar
But considering that most waitstaff doesn't earn that much per hourly, it would be a good will gesture toward their staff. Yea $0.40 is not much, but it does add up. If the restaurant wasn't going to raise their prices to cover the cost, then I may incline to chip in.
but raising the price to cover cost AND "gouging" their waitstaff? that is a bit greedy IMO.
Chibibar
Logically speaking, they don't have to.Credit card processing fees are 1.5% to 3%, so I can understand the restaurant passing on the cost of the tip's fees to the waitstaff. Even if they receive a $20 tip on a $100 meal, the waitstaff is only down by $0.40 for that tip. The restaurant still has to pay the $1.00 fee for their $100 worth of CC processing for that order.
Do they expect the employer to pay the full credit card processing fee for their tips? If they were salaried, then sure, but they are receiving cash directly from the customer - except in this case they are forcing the employer to pay for the credit card machines, and the fixed fees (monthly and per transaction). It would be no different if they each carried their own credit card machine around and had their tip run through that (say, square, or paypal, etc) and the food costs run through the employer's machine.
Why should the restaurant cover it?
But considering that most waitstaff doesn't earn that much per hourly, it would be a good will gesture toward their staff. Yea $0.40 is not much, but it does add up. If the restaurant wasn't going to raise their prices to cover the cost, then I may incline to chip in.
but raising the price to cover cost AND "gouging" their waitstaff? that is a bit greedy IMO.
#19
Shegokigo
Added at: 16:06
My proxy won't let me edit that horrible mess, so if a mod could go in and clean that up, much appreciated. If not, oh well, I can't even delete it.
Shegokigo
The majority of people I knew in the industry did not have assistance AND they had a kid or two they were raising on their own. Also, are you saying that a company should tax a povertish employee more, because they have outside assistance just to get them by?stienman said:They're working full time (ie, 40 hours a week) and they are only making $18,000 per year, and they have no other means of assistance (school funds, other work, spouse, family, etc)?
You're totally right. The people who have those jobs are those who dreamed their whole lives to get it and are living the dream.stienman said:Then the problem isn't that the restaurant is charging them $8/month to process their tip transactions, the problem is that they need a job that will support them.
Except the medical benefits that a restaurant offers, only offers it by taking out of their paychecks, which they already don't get.stienman said:If they are working full time (40/hr week) then $18k is the minimum they should be getting, as well as medical and other benefits. If they are working less than full time, they need a second job.
See two replies up.stienman said:If $100/year is going to make or break them, they should switch careers.
I'm starting to feel like a broken record but you did reply the same thing 3x.stienman said:Did they not know that going into waiting was not going to make them much money?
Added at: 16:06
My proxy won't let me edit that horrible mess, so if a mod could go in and clean that up, much appreciated. If not, oh well, I can't even delete it.
#20
strawman
I agree that the restaurant should simply consider it a business expense and cover it for the waitstaff. I disagree with those who say that the restaurant is doing something wrong, ethically or morally, by sharing the expense with the waitstaff.
The only rub I have is that the processing fee should be taken prior to the minimum wage calculation - the restaurant should be paying them at least minimum wage take-home, after tips and processing fees are calculated.
strawman
Most people do that job because they can't get another one. It isn't many peoples life ambition.
Ah, so the restaurant is a charity organization. Gotcha.Sorry for the double post but sometimes people can't find a better job.
I agree that the restaurant should simply consider it a business expense and cover it for the waitstaff. I disagree with those who say that the restaurant is doing something wrong, ethically or morally, by sharing the expense with the waitstaff.
The only rub I have is that the processing fee should be taken prior to the minimum wage calculation - the restaurant should be paying them at least minimum wage take-home, after tips and processing fees are calculated.
#21
AshburnerX
Also, getting a second job really isn't going to help you if your still pulling in less than minimum wage at your other job. If your waiting tables, chances are the only other job you can get is waiting tables. If you could get a job better than waiting tables, you wouldn't be doing it.
AshburnerX
I have NEVER heard of a waiter getting benefits of any kind, ever, in the United States. They usually just schedule you for an hour short of full time so they don't have to pay the expense. Unless your waiter can speak more than one language and is impeccable otherwise you simply can't justify the expense. It's a huge overhead in a market that already operates on razor thin margins.If they are working full time (40/hr week) then $18k is the minimum they should be getting, as well as medical and other benefits. If they are working less than full time, they need a second job.
Also, getting a second job really isn't going to help you if your still pulling in less than minimum wage at your other job. If your waiting tables, chances are the only other job you can get is waiting tables. If you could get a job better than waiting tables, you wouldn't be doing it.
I believe restaurants have a legal protection that lets them get away with not paying minimum wage and I believe it's because employees can collect tips (but don't quote me on that).The only rub I have is that the processing fee should be taken prior to the minimum wage calculation - the restaurant should be paying them at least minimum wage take-home, after tips and processing fees are calculated.
#22
strawman
strawman
Are you all really going to argue that the restaurant owes waitstaff a full living?
* Some people enjoy waiting, and that is their career. They have to organize their life so that their career supports them.
* Some people merely want a part time, no strings attached job, with a reasonably low learning curve to fill in extra time and bring in cash to supplement their current lifestyle, such as students.
* Some people, for whatever reason, are waiting, don't enjoy it, and find that it doesn't meet their expenses.
Waiting is perfect for the first two groups.
It is horrible for the third group.
Is it your argument that restaurants should cater to the third group of people, and operate what would essentially be a charity organization? I say charity in that they are not performing skills and work that is worth more than $16k/year.
* Some people enjoy waiting, and that is their career. They have to organize their life so that their career supports them.
* Some people merely want a part time, no strings attached job, with a reasonably low learning curve to fill in extra time and bring in cash to supplement their current lifestyle, such as students.
* Some people, for whatever reason, are waiting, don't enjoy it, and find that it doesn't meet their expenses.
Waiting is perfect for the first two groups.
It is horrible for the third group.
Is it your argument that restaurants should cater to the third group of people, and operate what would essentially be a charity organization? I say charity in that they are not performing skills and work that is worth more than $16k/year.
#23
Chibibar
While working at Denny's I met a couple of people where stay at home mom for a long while, but spouse lose the job, have kids, and have to work as waitstaff due to lack of other options. Some waitstaff do have 2nd job, but you know, even working nearly 40 hours a week as a waitstaff it is pretty hard work. I don't think I work harder in other job that including volunteer for Habitat for humanity or soup kitchen.
I am not sure why would you consider it Charity organization. I am at a lost on that one.
Lets assume a person work minimum at 2.13$ at 39 hours a week for 52 weeks (we don't close on holidays) that is 4319.64 a year prior to taxes. so lets say 18k a year that is around 13600 in tips for the year. That is 272$ a year in added expense which is around $23 a month. To you, it is not much. $23 dollar is like a meal for 2 or a movie and snacks, but when a person is barely scraping by and living already marginally, $23 is a lot of money. I use to live off Ramen and rice for a year. 23$ is a month worth of food for me.
While I agree that the restaurant are not obligated in anyways to "cover the cost" for their waitstaff, but I said it would be a good gesture since the waitstaff is already at the bottom of the barrel.
Chibibar
I am not sure what approach are you taking this. I am not sure what waitstaff you hold before, but sometimes people can't get other job cause this might be the only thing they know.Are you all really going to argue that the restaurant owes waitstaff a full living?
* Some people enjoy waiting, and that is their career. They have to organize their life so that their career supports them.
* Some people merely want a part time, no strings attached job, with a reasonably low learning curve to fill in extra time and bring in cash to supplement their current lifestyle, such as students.
* Some people, for whatever reason, are waiting, don't enjoy it, and find that it doesn't meet their expenses.
Waiting is perfect for the first two groups.
It is horrible for the third group.
Is it your argument that restaurants should cater to the third group of people, and operate what would essentially be a charity organization? I say charity in that they are not performing skills and work that is worth more than $16k/year.
While working at Denny's I met a couple of people where stay at home mom for a long while, but spouse lose the job, have kids, and have to work as waitstaff due to lack of other options. Some waitstaff do have 2nd job, but you know, even working nearly 40 hours a week as a waitstaff it is pretty hard work. I don't think I work harder in other job that including volunteer for Habitat for humanity or soup kitchen.
I am not sure why would you consider it Charity organization. I am at a lost on that one.
Lets assume a person work minimum at 2.13$ at 39 hours a week for 52 weeks (we don't close on holidays) that is 4319.64 a year prior to taxes. so lets say 18k a year that is around 13600 in tips for the year. That is 272$ a year in added expense which is around $23 a month. To you, it is not much. $23 dollar is like a meal for 2 or a movie and snacks, but when a person is barely scraping by and living already marginally, $23 is a lot of money. I use to live off Ramen and rice for a year. 23$ is a month worth of food for me.
While I agree that the restaurant are not obligated in anyways to "cover the cost" for their waitstaff, but I said it would be a good gesture since the waitstaff is already at the bottom of the barrel.
#24
strawman
If I pay more and get the same thing, I am a charity.
I don't disagree with you all on the cost of living, and how much $23 means to someone scraping the bottom of the barrel. I'm hardly one to talk as we live a relatively wealthy lifestyle, but just yesterday we canceled our $8/mo netflix subscription, and we're taking the bare minimum car trips necessary, and making the baby go longer between diaper changes because we're in a tight spot this month.
But the value of money to the employee has no bearing on what the employer should be doing. They are paying the market rate for the skills and labor they are asking employees to complete. If they need more skilled employees, they pay a higher rate. The only reason they aren't paying less is because of minimum wage and our tipping custom.
The reality is that waiters are currently making more than what they are worth, as determined by the market. They are already propped up by the minimum wage system, and restaurant customers are already forced to pay more for this service than they would be worth in a truly unencumbered market.
It is charity, legislated by the government.
strawman
My approach is simple. If I run a restaurant and I can get college kids to staff it for $2.35/hr plus tips, and they pay their portion of the credit card processing, then why would I hire people who cost more to do the same thing?I am not sure what approach are you taking this.
If I pay more and get the same thing, I am a charity.
I don't disagree with you all on the cost of living, and how much $23 means to someone scraping the bottom of the barrel. I'm hardly one to talk as we live a relatively wealthy lifestyle, but just yesterday we canceled our $8/mo netflix subscription, and we're taking the bare minimum car trips necessary, and making the baby go longer between diaper changes because we're in a tight spot this month.
But the value of money to the employee has no bearing on what the employer should be doing. They are paying the market rate for the skills and labor they are asking employees to complete. If they need more skilled employees, they pay a higher rate. The only reason they aren't paying less is because of minimum wage and our tipping custom.
The reality is that waiters are currently making more than what they are worth, as determined by the market. They are already propped up by the minimum wage system, and restaurant customers are already forced to pay more for this service than they would be worth in a truly unencumbered market.
It is charity, legislated by the government.
#25
Espy
Espy
So you seem to think it's automatically ethical for or morally right for the business to force their staff to help pay for business expenses. Can you explain that to me? I've never had a job where I was forced to pay for business expenses out of my own personal money. Why is it "morally right" in the service industry? If you build a computer for a client do they expect you to pay a percentage of the electronics you buy? I'm not saying your argument is invalid but you are claiming there is a moral/ethical rule that says it's okay for them to do this and I'm trying to figure out where that comes from?I agree that the restaurant should simply consider it a business expense and cover it for the waitstaff. I disagree with those who say that the restaurant is doing something wrong, ethically or morally, by sharing the expense with the waitstaff.
#26
Chibibar
so I am not understanding how it is a charity, legislated by the government.
There are exception that some waitstaff make more (depending on the business)
Chibibar
customer are not force to pay any tip. As a previous waitstaff, I tip according to service. If I get bad service, I don't tip. Of course there are people out there who are cheap and don't tip anyways.My approach is simple. If I run a restaurant and I can get college kids to staff it for $2.35/hr plus tips, and they pay their portion of the credit card processing, then why would I hire people who cost more to do the same thing?
If I pay more and get the same thing, I am a charity.
I don't disagree with you all on the cost of living, and how much $23 means to someone scraping the bottom of the barrel. I'm hardly one to talk as we live a relatively wealthy lifestyle, but just yesterday we canceled our $8/mo netflix subscription, and we're taking the bare minimum car trips necessary, and making the baby go longer between diaper changes because we're in a tight spot this month.
But the value of money to the employee has no bearing on what the employer should be doing. They are paying the market rate for the skills and labor they are asking employees to complete. If they need more skilled employees, they pay a higher rate. The only reason they aren't paying less is because of minimum wage and our tipping custom.
The reality is that waiters are currently making more than what they are worth, as determined by the market. They are already propped up by the minimum wage system, and restaurant customers are already forced to pay more for this service than they would be worth in a truly unencumbered market.
It is charity, legislated by the government.
so I am not understanding how it is a charity, legislated by the government.
There are exception that some waitstaff make more (depending on the business)
#27
Sara_2814
Restaurants are not forced to accept credit cards, but they would probably lose business if they didn't. Credit card fees are an operating cost to provide a convenience to customers and should not be used to penalize an employee who gets a credit card tip rather than cash on the table. Being able to put the tip on the credit card rather than having to carry cash for tips is for the customer's benefit, not the employee's! It's the customer who decides whether to add the tip to the credit card or put cash on the table, so shouldn't it be the customer who pays the extra 2% for that convenience? Why penalize the employee?
People expect that their tips will go to their waitstaff. If they are going to do this, then they need to inform the customers that the restaurant will be taking a 2% fee out of credit card tips.
Sara_2814
When you live in a country with minimum wage laws? Yes.Are you all really going to argue that the restaurant owes waitstaff a full living?
Restaurants are not forced to accept credit cards, but they would probably lose business if they didn't. Credit card fees are an operating cost to provide a convenience to customers and should not be used to penalize an employee who gets a credit card tip rather than cash on the table. Being able to put the tip on the credit card rather than having to carry cash for tips is for the customer's benefit, not the employee's! It's the customer who decides whether to add the tip to the credit card or put cash on the table, so shouldn't it be the customer who pays the extra 2% for that convenience? Why penalize the employee?
People expect that their tips will go to their waitstaff. If they are going to do this, then they need to inform the customers that the restaurant will be taking a 2% fee out of credit card tips.
#28
Chibibar
Added at: 11:24
Chibibar
Heh. It is like business charging 200-300$/hr for a tech to service while the tech is only paid 25$/hr The company cover all the cost and thus get the extra money, but I can't see a company taking a percentage of the tech 25$/hr cause the rise in fuel (if the tech drive company car like Think Geek)So you seem to think it's automatically ethical for or morally right for the business to force their staff to help pay for business expenses. Can you explain that to me? I've never had a job where I was forced to pay for business expenses out of my own personal money. Why is it "morally right" in the service industry? If you build a computer for a client do they expect you to pay a percentage of the electronics you buy? I'm not saying your argument is invalid but you are claiming there is a moral/ethical rule that says it's okay for them to do this and I'm trying to figure out where that comes from?
Added at: 11:24
OOO... I would love to see a fine print on the receipt for THATWhen you live in a country with minimum wage laws? Yes.
Restaurants are not forced to accept credit cards, but they would probably lose business if they didn't. Credit card fees are an operating cost to provide a convenience to customers and should not be used to penalize an employee who gets a credit card tip rather than cash on the table. Being able to put the tip on the credit card rather than having to carry cash for tips is for the customer's benefit, not the employee's! It's the customer who decides whether to add the tip to the credit card or put cash on the table, so shouldn't it be the customer who pays the extra 2% for that convenience? Why penalize the employee?
People expect that their tips will go to their waitstaff. If they are going to do this, then they need to inform the customers that the restaurant will be taking a 2% fee out of credit card tips.
#29
strawman
I'm not saying it's ethically or morally right or wrong. Why should ethics and morals have place in this discussion at all?
The waiter is running a business. They are able to sell their time and skills to whoever they choose. If they choose to be employed by a restaurant that requires them to pay their CC fees, then they accept those terms, or they find a different job, or they live unemployed.
Why must it be ethically right or wrong for a business to share the cost of some of their overhead with their employees?
Some businesses have a dress code. You can't simply wear your ratty old sweater while working - you have to pay for clothing that matches their guidelines.
This is business overhead - the cost of keeping up your end of the agreeement to be employed by that business.
Is it ethically or morally wrong to set these terms in this manner? I don't see it. It's simply a business relationship - you either like it and accept it, or you don't like it and you don't accept it.
strawman
The tipping system in the US is a payment directly to the waitstaff. The customer is completing two transactions, for two services - one is the food preparation, and one is the delivery and customer care. Legally, the tip must go to the waitperson. Therefore the waitperson is running their own business, and should be willing to cover their own business expenses where the restaurant elects not to.So you seem to think it's automatically ethical for or morally right for the business to force their staff to help pay for business expenses. Can you explain that to me?
I'm not saying it's ethically or morally right or wrong. Why should ethics and morals have place in this discussion at all?
The waiter is running a business. They are able to sell their time and skills to whoever they choose. If they choose to be employed by a restaurant that requires them to pay their CC fees, then they accept those terms, or they find a different job, or they live unemployed.
Why must it be ethically right or wrong for a business to share the cost of some of their overhead with their employees?
Some businesses have a dress code. You can't simply wear your ratty old sweater while working - you have to pay for clothing that matches their guidelines.
This is business overhead - the cost of keeping up your end of the agreeement to be employed by that business.
Is it ethically or morally wrong to set these terms in this manner? I don't see it. It's simply a business relationship - you either like it and accept it, or you don't like it and you don't accept it.
To provide even greater value to the customers, obviously. Was that meant to be a trick question?Why penalize the employee?
#30
Jax
Jax
The real problem is not whether they are justified in doing it or not (though this is an important one of course), but why they started to do it now (and not before). Was there an increase in card processing costs to initiate this? Is the restaurant in financial trouble and are they looking for things to save money on? If not, then it just seems greedy, and I think thát is what people are against.
#31
strawman
strawman
I'm interested to know what people's definition of greedy is, with regard to restaurants. Is there a limit to how much profit a restaurant can make before they are considered greedy? It just seems like a subjective word to use in order to form propaganda against an employee-unfavorable change.
I suppose it's greedy that the restaurant has a dress code and requires employees to buy, wash, and replace clothes they wear to work. I surprised the restaurant is so greedy that they don't cover footwear, which wear out more quickly as a waiter, and are more expensive to provide the proper support for the work load. The waiters use a lot of energy performing their duties, and the restaurant is so terribly greedy they don't even cover meals for them.
What a greedy business!
I say that waiters who don't like how greedy the restaurant owners are should quit their job.
Oh, right, they can't. For some reason they are unable to get another job, and they are chained to the restaurant to work as slaves for slave wages. They have no freedom to learn, grow, and obtain better employment.
-----------
Yes, there are extremes in every situation. It's not necessarily fair. I would prefer the restaurant to cover the cost as a normal part of their business. Vote with your pocketbook.
But to pretend that the entire waitstaff industry is staffed entirely by people who are single, have two children, have to pay $900/mo for a hovel, have no education, and such limited mental capacity that waiting is literally the best they can ever attain really seems insulting to the majority of the real employees in those positions.
I suppose it's greedy that the restaurant has a dress code and requires employees to buy, wash, and replace clothes they wear to work. I surprised the restaurant is so greedy that they don't cover footwear, which wear out more quickly as a waiter, and are more expensive to provide the proper support for the work load. The waiters use a lot of energy performing their duties, and the restaurant is so terribly greedy they don't even cover meals for them.
What a greedy business!
I say that waiters who don't like how greedy the restaurant owners are should quit their job.
Oh, right, they can't. For some reason they are unable to get another job, and they are chained to the restaurant to work as slaves for slave wages. They have no freedom to learn, grow, and obtain better employment.
-----------
Yes, there are extremes in every situation. It's not necessarily fair. I would prefer the restaurant to cover the cost as a normal part of their business. Vote with your pocketbook.
But to pretend that the entire waitstaff industry is staffed entirely by people who are single, have two children, have to pay $900/mo for a hovel, have no education, and such limited mental capacity that waiting is literally the best they can ever attain really seems insulting to the majority of the real employees in those positions.
#32
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
Again, I was only speaking from experience but majority of those real employees were the ones you described or students looking for part time work. Basically put, the kind of peole that majority work as servers, cannot afford to have more money taken from them because a business doesn't want to cover it's own working costs.
#33
strawman
strawman
So essentially the business should pay more for employees even if they could get other employees who would work for less. And they should do this because their employees need more money than the business is offering.
What, exactly, does the business get in return for this additional cost when they have the choice between an employee that will pay for the fees, and one that requires the business to pay for the fees? Especially if the employee is still getting at least minimum wage, after the fees are figured in?
What, exactly, does the business get in return for this additional cost when they have the choice between an employee that will pay for the fees, and one that requires the business to pay for the fees? Especially if the employee is still getting at least minimum wage, after the fees are figured in?
#34
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
The company has people do their work, and pays them nothing/next to nothing. There's no way to get employees to work for less. They're basically getting people to take the orders, take the food to the table, fullfill the customer's every request, be the cashier and give them the reciept + the change, and do all that for nothing. They don't give benefits anywhere near what most businesses do, and if the employee reports their full tips, the restraurant won't even pay them a check at all. What you're not understanding is that most restaurants do NOT pay the employee if they report tips. If they do, the restraunt pays the employee NOTHING.
#35
strawman
strawman
Oh, and regarding "the kind of peole that majority work as servers, cannot afford to have more money taken from them"
Essentially if the business shut down, these people would die, right? They have no skills, not other positions, and no ability to deal with even pennies difference in their daily take home pay, right?
Further, what a stupid career choice, to depend completely on the hours they are scheduled and the tips they earn! Hardly a stable source of income!
The pennies they lose in credit card transactions are nothing compared to the normal ups and downs of that business!
Further, they are human - they will survive somehow. So many people here are painting such a bleak picture for these tortured souls, but it's hard for me to believe. They can get government assistance for job hunting, for education, for child care, for food, for housing, etc, etc, etc, at $18k/year. They need only reach out their hand and grasp it.
Of course it would require extra effort on their part, but we're literally talking about dollars per year in credit card transactions - it sounds like these people have much greater problems - this particular issue is the least of their worries!
Essentially if the business shut down, these people would die, right? They have no skills, not other positions, and no ability to deal with even pennies difference in their daily take home pay, right?
Further, what a stupid career choice, to depend completely on the hours they are scheduled and the tips they earn! Hardly a stable source of income!
The pennies they lose in credit card transactions are nothing compared to the normal ups and downs of that business!
Further, they are human - they will survive somehow. So many people here are painting such a bleak picture for these tortured souls, but it's hard for me to believe. They can get government assistance for job hunting, for education, for child care, for food, for housing, etc, etc, etc, at $18k/year. They need only reach out their hand and grasp it.
Of course it would require extra effort on their part, but we're literally talking about dollars per year in credit card transactions - it sounds like these people have much greater problems - this particular issue is the least of their worries!
#36
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
I'm against it, not because I think restaurants should be a charity (which no one said, and is absurd) but because it breaks the social contact.
A restaurant hires wait staff for a certain amount, this is a business expense. You have no business without people to work it.
You hire wait staff at below minimum wage, with the agreement that they will be able to make up for this by providing good service and receiving tips.
The customer decides what to tip. The money they provide as a tip is being paid to the waiter, in exchange for the quality of service. They are NOT paying the restaurant, which they have already done by paying the agreed upon price of the food.
Credit card transaction fees are nothing new. In no other business would an employer charge their employees to process credit card transactions. If you cannot afford to take credit cards without deducting it from your employee pay, then you cannot afford to take credit cards.
A restaurant hires wait staff for a certain amount, this is a business expense. You have no business without people to work it.
You hire wait staff at below minimum wage, with the agreement that they will be able to make up for this by providing good service and receiving tips.
The customer decides what to tip. The money they provide as a tip is being paid to the waiter, in exchange for the quality of service. They are NOT paying the restaurant, which they have already done by paying the agreed upon price of the food.
Credit card transaction fees are nothing new. In no other business would an employer charge their employees to process credit card transactions. If you cannot afford to take credit cards without deducting it from your employee pay, then you cannot afford to take credit cards.
#37
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
But we're not talkinga bout their greater problems. We're talking about restraurants charging employees, that they already for the most part aren't paying at all, to do their job.
#38
Espy
Espy
Sorry Adam, I misread what you said, it sounded like you were saying those saying it was ethically wrong were wrong, the implication being that it is ethically right for a business to do it. My bad.
I get your point, I really do. Naturally every business has terms it's employees must follow that can and may cost them money. And yes, that is an accepted part of the employer/employee working contract.
What I wonder is where are the limits to that? The logic that it really sounds like you are endorsing (maybe I'm hearing you wrong though), says, "as long as there is someone to work under those terms" is... well, it doesn't sit very well with me for obvious (at least what I think are obvious) reasons.
Added at: 12:57
Also, so far everyone who has voted is against it.
Interesting.
I get your point, I really do. Naturally every business has terms it's employees must follow that can and may cost them money. And yes, that is an accepted part of the employer/employee working contract.
What I wonder is where are the limits to that? The logic that it really sounds like you are endorsing (maybe I'm hearing you wrong though), says, "as long as there is someone to work under those terms" is... well, it doesn't sit very well with me for obvious (at least what I think are obvious) reasons.
Added at: 12:57
Also, so far everyone who has voted is against it.
Interesting.
#39
strawman
So, no matter what, the employee makes at least minimum wage. The employer may or may not pay the employee, but the employee always makes minimum wage.
Added at: 14:00
Or, in other words, Shego, if you disagree with this on a fundamental "these people aren't making enough" level, then you need to talk about increasing the minimum wage.
2% is nothing in the face of the problems these people have, according to your frightening account.
strawman
I understand how the business works. http://www.ehow.com/list_6758966_michigan-labor-law-wages-tips.html for Michigan's version, which closely follows federal standards that all states must adhere to.What you're not understanding is that most restaurants do NOT pay the employee if they report tips. If they do, the restraunt pays the employee NOTHING.
So, no matter what, the employee makes at least minimum wage. The employer may or may not pay the employee, but the employee always makes minimum wage.
Added at: 14:00
Or, in other words, Shego, if you disagree with this on a fundamental "these people aren't making enough" level, then you need to talk about increasing the minimum wage.
2% is nothing in the face of the problems these people have, according to your frightening account.
#40
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
Makes minimum wage thanks to the customers, not the employer. So now the employer is going to charge the employee on what he makes from the customer even though he's not paying the employee at all? That's really the stance you think is ok?
#41
strawman
There are limits to it - they are defined in the constitution and much legislation. They have the right to non-discrimination (except, as noted in another thread, when working in some positions in some religious institutions). They have the right to pursue their own happiness. They have the right to privacy. They have the right to safety in the workplace. They have the right to work free from oppression. There are things employers must provide to all employees, and every state has an employee bill of rights of a sort that all employers must display in a place where all employees can read it.
No one has the right to a job, however, nevermind a 30k/year job with benefits.
strawman
I haven't voted because none of the options really express my sentiment, which apparently is ill-received.What I wonder is where are the limits to that? The logic that it really sounds like you are endorsing (maybe I'm hearing you wrong though), says, "as long as there is someone to work under those terms" is... well, it doesn't sit very well with me for obvious (at least what I think are obvious) reasons.
There are limits to it - they are defined in the constitution and much legislation. They have the right to non-discrimination (except, as noted in another thread, when working in some positions in some religious institutions). They have the right to pursue their own happiness. They have the right to privacy. They have the right to safety in the workplace. They have the right to work free from oppression. There are things employers must provide to all employees, and every state has an employee bill of rights of a sort that all employers must display in a place where all employees can read it.
No one has the right to a job, however, nevermind a 30k/year job with benefits.
#42
figmentPez
figmentPez
This is not the way to encourage your employees. Waiters sell your restaurant. They are the face of your business to your customer. If a waiter is good they are the ones who talk up the food, they are the front line in making customers happy, they are key to the operation of a restaurant. Taking a portion of their tips away is basically saying "What you already do to improve my business is not good enough. You're not doing enough to earn me money by doing your job well, so I'm going to take the appreciation of your customers for myself." That is a horrible message to send to an employee. If your staff isn't making you money, fire them and hire a new staff. If you can't make money off of a good staff, then it's your fault, not a lack of tip money.
I'd love to see Robert Irvine chew out the morons who thought up this idea. They show a clear and obvious lack of leadership skills and business knowledge.
I'd love to see Robert Irvine chew out the morons who thought up this idea. They show a clear and obvious lack of leadership skills and business knowledge.
#43
strawman
And of course they are making minimum wage due to the employer - if they were fired, they wouldn't even be making that. If the customers didn't pay enough to make minimum wage, the employer has to pony up. I don't understand why you are arguing with my on this point. They are making at least minimum wage. If you think that minimum wage is too little to live off of, why aren't you making a thread complaining about it, rather than using this issue as a soapbox for minimum wage reform?
strawman
I thought I explained it earlier. If the customer is paying the waiter directly, and the customer demands to use a credit card, then the waiter has the option of using their own credit card processing service. Why don't they? They want the employer to pay for a service that the waiter is using to profit from. In other words they want to make 2% more than minimum wage by having some of the costs THEY incur covered by their employer. Even after the credit card processing fees are assessed, they are STILL making minimum wage - they have to by law. After the fees are assessed. You get it? They are, in all cases, making at least minimum wage. What you are arguing for is that the employer cover CC fees for the employee, and essentially pay the employee 2% MORE than minimum wage.Makes minimum wage thanks to the customers, not the employer. So now the employer is going to charge the employee on what he makes from the customer even though he's not paying the employee at all? That's really the stance you think is ok?
And of course they are making minimum wage due to the employer - if they were fired, they wouldn't even be making that. If the customers didn't pay enough to make minimum wage, the employer has to pony up. I don't understand why you are arguing with my on this point. They are making at least minimum wage. If you think that minimum wage is too little to live off of, why aren't you making a thread complaining about it, rather than using this issue as a soapbox for minimum wage reform?
#44
Chibibar
I don't pretend the entire waitstaff to be your vision. They all come from all walks of life, but generally it is not a "high profile paying job" unless you work in one of those fancy restaurant where a meal cost over 100$ a person (or 100$ for 2)
If there is a major jump in credit card processing fee, then I can see if a restaurant willing roll into as part of the expense. If I were a restaurant owner (which my parents were so they agree after chatting with them during lunch) it is much easier just to roll it in than trying to keep tab of each TIP for each waitstaff and calculate the fee off the CC slip and then take it out from their pay (extra calculation and bookkeeping) it would be a pain in the butt.
Chibibar
I would only consider greedy is the restaurant is increase price to cover the charge AND charge the waitstaff.I'm interested to know what people's definition of greedy is, with regard to restaurants. Is there a limit to how much profit a restaurant can make before they are considered greedy? It just seems like a subjective word to use in order to form propaganda against an employee-unfavorable change.
I suppose it's greedy that the restaurant has a dress code and requires employees to buy, wash, and replace clothes they wear to work. I surprised the restaurant is so greedy that they don't cover footwear, which wear out more quickly as a waiter, and are more expensive to provide the proper support for the work load. The waiters use a lot of energy performing their duties, and the restaurant is so terribly greedy they don't even cover meals for them.
What a greedy business!
I say that waiters who don't like how greedy the restaurant owners are should quit their job.
Oh, right, they can't. For some reason they are unable to get another job, and they are chained to the restaurant to work as slaves for slave wages. They have no freedom to learn, grow, and obtain better employment.
-----------
Yes, there are extremes in every situation. It's not necessarily fair. I would prefer the restaurant to cover the cost as a normal part of their business. Vote with your pocketbook.
But to pretend that the entire waitstaff industry is staffed entirely by people who are single, have two children, have to pay $900/mo for a hovel, have no education, and such limited mental capacity that waiting is literally the best they can ever attain really seems insulting to the majority of the real employees in those positions.
I don't pretend the entire waitstaff to be your vision. They all come from all walks of life, but generally it is not a "high profile paying job" unless you work in one of those fancy restaurant where a meal cost over 100$ a person (or 100$ for 2)
If there is a major jump in credit card processing fee, then I can see if a restaurant willing roll into as part of the expense. If I were a restaurant owner (which my parents were so they agree after chatting with them during lunch) it is much easier just to roll it in than trying to keep tab of each TIP for each waitstaff and calculate the fee off the CC slip and then take it out from their pay (extra calculation and bookkeeping) it would be a pain in the butt.
#45
strawman
strawman
Posting because I don't want to break my streak of almost-every-other-post-in-this-thread
#46
phil
phil
You should also add a hint of a condescending attitude and gems of wisdom like "perhaps, just try not being poor?" to keep the streak alive then.Posting because I don't want to break my streak of almost-every-other-post-in-this-thread
#47
Espy
COMBO BREAKER!
Espy
Posting because I don't want to break my streak of almost-every-other-post-in-this-thread
COMBO BREAKER!
#48
MindDetective
Sorry if that was mentioned.
MindDetective
I didn't read the rest of this thread because I have to go, but this is the first thing that popped into my head: To attract good waitstaff.Why should the restaurant cover it?
Sorry if that was mentioned.
#49
Espy
Espy
Also, what option(s) would you like to see added to the poll?
#50
Chibibar
Chibibar
stienman: my wife said that you might be trolling me BUT you bring valid point.
Service industry - this is an interesting industry really. You have people coming into this world from all walks of life. Some chosen (cause they like it) some forced (no where else to go) it is one of the few industry requires minimal skills (personality is important to make it a career)
but it is not a high paying industry generally except for higher class restaurant. People in this industry can either shop around to get a better pay/environment or sometimes just take what you can get.
I guess what I am trying to say is that while you are right that restaurant should share the cost since the money is going toward the waitstaff and there is a fee associate with it. It is within the restaurant owner's right to collect that fee.
But it will create an illusion of greed toward those staff. These staff are your front line to your business. These people can make or break you.
Since such practice is not common, including such a system now would/could cause issue with your staff. You could lose some of your better staff who may go to different business who willing to eat the cost (pun intended)
BUT you bring valid point.Service industry - this is an interesting industry really. You have people coming into this world from all walks of life. Some chosen (cause they like it) some forced (no where else to go) it is one of the few industry requires minimal skills (personality is important to make it a career)
but it is not a high paying industry generally except for higher class restaurant. People in this industry can either shop around to get a better pay/environment or sometimes just take what you can get.
I guess what I am trying to say is that while you are right that restaurant should share the cost since the money is going toward the waitstaff and there is a fee associate with it. It is within the restaurant owner's right to collect that fee.
But it will create an illusion of greed toward those staff. These staff are your front line to your business. These people can make or break you.
Since such practice is not common, including such a system now would/could cause issue with your staff. You could lose some of your better staff who may go to different business who willing to eat the cost (pun intended)
#51
strawman
The kicker is that they won't have a problem finding people who will work under the terms they've set, and they can still pick and choose among applicant and get staff that's "good enough", thus they ultimately save money.
Not much, but in a business where $23 makes a difference between profitability and closing up shop, this change can make all the difference in the world.
/me add extra condescension to this post, to avoid passing around offense unequally.
strawman
No, you were the first - and it essentially admits the basic premise that you get what you pay for. The restaurant in question obviously doesn't care for its waitstaff, and is willing to settle for worse waitstaff as they migrate to better employers.I didn't read the rest of this thread because I have to go, but this is the first thing that popped into my head: To attract good waitstaff.
Sorry if that was mentioned.
The kicker is that they won't have a problem finding people who will work under the terms they've set, and they can still pick and choose among applicant and get staff that's "good enough", thus they ultimately save money.
Not much, but in a business where $23 makes a difference between profitability and closing up shop, this change can make all the difference in the world.
/me add extra condescension to this post, to avoid passing around offense unequally.
#52
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
My bad, I thought you honestly believed what you were posting. Almost believed you channeled Charlie for a minute.
#53
Chibibar
Chibibar
That is what I'm thinking.My bad, I thought you honestly believed what you were posting. Almost believed you channeled Charlie for a minute.
#54
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
If the business is in a position where $23 will break them, then it's their fault for being a poor business.Not much, but in a business where $23 makes a difference between profitability and closing up shop, this change can make all the difference in the world.
#55
strawman
strawman
If the person is in a position where $23 will break them, then it's their fault for being a poor person.
#57
strawman
strawman
A business is a person. A person is a one-man business.
In what way is this offensive?
Ravenpoe's statement is false. I'm pointing that out by showing him that if it were true for businesses, it would also have to hold true for individuals.
In what way is this offensive?
Ravenpoe's statement is false. I'm pointing that out by showing him that if it were true for businesses, it would also have to hold true for individuals.
#58
figmentPez
Your word wrangling in an attempt to justify your position is being a jackass.
figmentPez
He was talking about restaurants with wait-staff, not each and every possible business. A person can be a one-person business. A restaurant with wait-staff cannot be a one-person business.A business is a person. A person is a one-man business.
In what way is this offensive?
Ravenpoe's statement is false. I'm pointing that out by showing him that if it were true for businesses, it would also have to hold true for individuals.
Your word wrangling in an attempt to justify your position is being a jackass.
#59
Azurephoenix
Azurephoenix
After reading through all this... here's my take:
When I leave a tip... that's for the server... not for the damn restaurant. They already got paid from the price of the meal.
When I leave a tip... that's for the server... not for the damn restaurant. They already got paid from the price of the meal.
#60
phil
phil
If I'm a one man business am I entitled to the tax breaks that other businesses are?
If I'm a one man business then I'm just going to cut my overhead by pushing this cost to my client, or in this case the place that hired me to bring food to their customers.
If I'm a one man business then I'm just going to cut my overhead by pushing this cost to my client, or in this case the place that hired me to bring food to their customers.
#61
Chibibar
I say the restaurant should do it (hence the whole debate)
Chibibar
True, but Stienman thinks that if you leave the tip on the CC (i.e. add the tip and total on it) the fee of processing that tip (well process the whole charge) is around 1-3%, so part of that tip (say 10$) the server should fork over 30cent for the fee.After reading through all this... here's my take:
When I leave a tip... that's for the server... not for the damn restaurant. They already got paid from the price of the meal.
I say the restaurant should do it (hence the whole debate)
#62
strawman
It's enough, to me, to point out in a rather amusing way that the idea that individuals are somehow less accountable for their financial situation than businesses are is laughable.
strawman
I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that basic economic theory that applies to a family (income, expenses, budget, lifestyle) is radically different then basic economic theory applied to a small business (incomes, expenses, budget, business decisions)?He was talking about restaurants with wait-staff, not each and every possible business. A person can be a one-person business. A restaurant with wait-staff cannot be a one-person business.
I apologize. It's not my intent to offend anyone. I'm being somewhat flippant because it amuses me to do so, and I'm not interested in writing treatise length pieces about how a single statement, as applied to a given situation, is true, or false, or somewhere inbetween.Your word wrangling in an attempt to justify your position is being a jackass.
It's enough, to me, to point out in a rather amusing way that the idea that individuals are somehow less accountable for their financial situation than businesses are is laughable.
#63
Ravenpoe
So yes, it is false. I'm glad we agree.
Ravenpoe
I was actually taking your previous statement, that a waiter that's in such a precarious financial situation that a few dollars would break them is at fault for being in that situation, and using the business analogy to point out that error.Ravenpoe's statement is false. I'm pointing that out by showing him that if it were true for businesses, it would also have to hold true for individuals.
So yes, it is false. I'm glad we agree.
#64
strawman
strawman
I'd be fine with that if businesses also got the tax breaks individuals have.If I'm a one man business am I entitled to the tax breaks that other businesses are?
#65
Allen who is Quiet
Allen who is Quiet
As long as the restaurant makes it clear on the receipt that a small percentage of your tip goes towards paying credit card processing fees when you pay using credit card, I'm fine with the policy. If I want the server to have all the money from the tip, then I pay using cash or debit.
#66
figmentPez
Now if we were talking about 2% of total income... Well, yeah, if 2% is going to make or break you, that's a bad position for a business or an individual to be in. After that fact we look at it differently, though. You say the business should just charge the waiters, and the waiters should take it because it's fair. I say that the business shouldn't charge the waiters, because the business wants to send the message that it values it's employees. It's not "fair" for the business to do that, but I think it's the right choice to make more money for both the waiters and the restaurant.
Added at: 16:55
Added at: 16:56
Added at: 16:59
I'm also curious if the fee the restaurant is charging fairly reflects the real cost of the credit card fees, or if the restaurant has padded or fudged the numbers to "simplify" the math, while getting more from the waiters than it really costs them to process the tips.
figmentPez
When you're talking about specific dollar amounts, yes. $23 to an individual working a minimum wage job is a much larger percentage of their monthly income than it is to a restaurant with a half-dozen employees or more.I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that basic economic theory that applies to a family (income, expenses, budget, lifestyle) is radically different then basic economic theory applied to a small business (incomes, expenses, budget, business decisions)?
Now if we were talking about 2% of total income... Well, yeah, if 2% is going to make or break you, that's a bad position for a business or an individual to be in. After that fact we look at it differently, though. You say the business should just charge the waiters, and the waiters should take it because it's fair. I say that the business shouldn't charge the waiters, because the business wants to send the message that it values it's employees. It's not "fair" for the business to do that, but I think it's the right choice to make more money for both the waiters and the restaurant.
Added at: 16:55
Debit cards already incur fees, or will soon.If I want the server to have all the money from the tip, then I pay using cash or debit.
Added at: 16:56
If you incorporate as a business, then you can get certain tax benefits, and certain responsibilities as well.If I'm a one man business am I entitled to the tax breaks that other businesses are?
Added at: 16:59
I'm also curious if the fee the restaurant is charging fairly reflects the real cost of the credit card fees, or if the restaurant has padded or fudged the numbers to "simplify" the math, while getting more from the waiters than it really costs them to process the tips.
#67
Chibibar
I agree that it is better for business to swallow the cost instead of "gouging" their waitstaff. You be surprise (btw have you work as a waitstaff Stienman?) how a waitstaff can make a difference in your business. you could have the BEST food in town, but if your waitstaff (majority) is poor, people are less likely to come back.
It is a psychological thing. There are people out there (my wife is one of them) that a single bad experience and they will never go back to that place ever again. Of course a single bad event to a wrong food critic, and you can kiss your business good bye. The waitstaff is part of your business. How you treat them can help your business.
Chibibar
You say it much better than I.When you're talking about specific dollar amounts, yes. $23 to an individual working a minimum wage job is a much larger percentage of their monthly income than it is to a restaurant with a half-dozen employees or more.
Now if we were talking about 2% of total income... Well, yeah, if 2% is going to make or break you, that's a bad position for a business or an individual to be in. After that fact we look at it differently, though. You say the business should just charge the waiters, and the waiters should take it because it's fair. I say that the business shouldn't charge the waiters, because the business wants to send the message that it values it's employees. It's not "fair" for the business to do that, but I think it's the right choice to make more money for both the waiters and the restaurant.
Added at: 16:55
Debit cards already incur fees, or will soon.
I agree that it is better for business to swallow the cost instead of "gouging" their waitstaff. You be surprise (btw have you work as a waitstaff Stienman?) how a waitstaff can make a difference in your business. you could have the BEST food in town, but if your waitstaff (majority) is poor, people are less likely to come back.
It is a psychological thing. There are people out there (my wife is one of them) that a single bad experience and they will never go back to that place ever again. Of course a single bad event to a wrong food critic, and you can kiss your business good bye. The waitstaff is part of your business. How you treat them can help your business.
#68
strawman
There appear to be many people here who imply that the employees are getting shafted, or that the business is being greedy. I disagree - it's a business decision. It's not shady. It's not wrong. It's not something the employees will like, sure, but it's not intrinsically a good or bad, or right or wrong decision. The employees will find new jobs if they don't like the terms, and new employees will file in behind them who don't mind the terms.
Are you saying we should legislate that credit card processing fees for tips should be paid by the employer? Because if it's fundamentally wrong, then that's what should occur, right?
Added at: 18:02
strawman
No, I say businesses shouldn't pass that along to their employees, but I don't think it's wrong or immoral to do so - it's merely another business decision.You say the business should just charge the waiters, and the waiters should take it because it's fair.
There appear to be many people here who imply that the employees are getting shafted, or that the business is being greedy. I disagree - it's a business decision. It's not shady. It's not wrong. It's not something the employees will like, sure, but it's not intrinsically a good or bad, or right or wrong decision. The employees will find new jobs if they don't like the terms, and new employees will file in behind them who don't mind the terms.
Are you saying we should legislate that credit card processing fees for tips should be paid by the employer? Because if it's fundamentally wrong, then that's what should occur, right?
Added at: 18:02
No.btw have you work as a waitstaff Stienman?
#69
Chibibar
Chibibar
Why legislate? The business already paying the credit card processing fee when they charge a card. The whole argument was since a tip was included, should the fee be pass on to the waitstaff.No, I say businesses shouldn't pass that along to their employees, but I don't think it's wrong or immoral to do so - it's merely another business decision.
There appear to be many people here who imply that the employees are getting shafted, or that the business is being greedy. I disagree - it's a business decision. It's not shady. It's not wrong. It's not something the employees will like, sure, but it's not intrinsically a good or bad, or right or wrong decision. The employees will find new jobs if they don't like the terms, and new employees will file in behind them who don't mind the terms.
Are you saying we should legislate that credit card processing fees for tips should be paid by the employer? Because if it's fundamentally wrong, then that's what should occur, right?
Added at: 18:02
#70
strawman
But keep in mind that they are charging a flat rate, and not the additional 20-30 cents per transaction that is usually also assessed.
It's murky at best.
Either way I hope they go out of business.
strawman
I am curious about this as well. It's very unlikely that the business CC fee is exactly 2%, and if it is, they need to find a new CC processor.I'm also curious if the fee the restaurant is charging fairly reflects the real cost of the credit card fees, or if the restaurant has padded or fudged the numbers to "simplify" the math, while getting more from the waiters than it really costs them to process the tips.
But keep in mind that they are charging a flat rate, and not the additional 20-30 cents per transaction that is usually also assessed.
It's murky at best.
Either way I hope they go out of business.
#71
kaykordeath
I know many people who prefer to tip in cash when paying by credit card. What happens if management decides that a particular server is earning too much of their tips in cash and therefore isn't pulling their weight on covering credit card fees?
kaykordeath
I'd like to reiterate the "business expense" aspect of this. Operating costs, rent, utilities, insurance, licensing, etc should all recouped through revenue, ie the paying customers. I fail to see how a credit card service fee would be any different than a fee charged by the management's accountant, or a monthly bank account fee. The ability to process credit cards comes along with fees. When the management made the decisions to accept cards (a choice they could have made differently) than they must factor into the business plan how to cover those expenses.A restaurant hires wait staff for a certain amount, this is a business expense. You have no business without people to work it.
I know many people who prefer to tip in cash when paying by credit card. What happens if management decides that a particular server is earning too much of their tips in cash and therefore isn't pulling their weight on covering credit card fees?
#72
figmentPez
figmentPez
I disagree. Just because something is wrong doesn't mean it should be legislated against. Something can be wrong without being an injustice. It's wrong to serve an overcooked steak, and a poor business decision, but it's not an injustice that needs to be made illegal. I think it's wrong for a business to slap a percentage fee on tips, and a poor business decision, but it's not an injustice to the wait-staff (unless there are already laws about the handling of tips in general that would prevent such).Are you saying we should legislate that credit card processing fees for tips should be paid by the employer? Because if it's fundamentally wrong, then that's what should occur, right?
#73
strawman
Also, the accountant doesn't charged based on a percentage of the cost of the transaction. Some business costs are fixed, and those should be covered by the business.
The monthly charge for credit card processing is fixed, and covered by the business. The percentage based on the charged amount is not fixed - so why should it be covered by the business?
Just because the revenue goes straight to the waiter doesn't mean that fees incurred to collect the tip should be covered as a business expense.
strawman
So... the tip is not revenue?I'd like to reiterate the "business expense" aspect of this. Operating costs, rent, utilities, insurance, licensing, etc should all recouped through revenue
Also, the accountant doesn't charged based on a percentage of the cost of the transaction. Some business costs are fixed, and those should be covered by the business.
The monthly charge for credit card processing is fixed, and covered by the business. The percentage based on the charged amount is not fixed - so why should it be covered by the business?
Just because the revenue goes straight to the waiter doesn't mean that fees incurred to collect the tip should be covered as a business expense.
#74
phil
phil
But the fee covers the whole meal, not just the tip. At most the wages taken from the waiter should be in direct proportion to the tip.
#75
kaykordeath
kaykordeath
I'd argue that it isn't. It's akin to a person renting a table at a flea market. They pay a flat fee to lease the space...the market doesn't charge based on how much they sell. The server is working at the restaurant in exchange for the restaurant hiring an employee at less than minimum wage. The 5 dollars an hour under minimum is their "payment" to the restaurant in exchange for the opportunity to make tips.So... the tip is not revenue?
Perhaps if the whole restaurant was set up on a profit-sharing basis I'd agree...but the ownership has their source of revenue in food and drinks...the servers have their services.[/quote][/quote]Just because the revenue goes straight to the waiter doesn't mean that fees incurred to collect the tip should be covered as a business expense.
#76
Disconnected
Disconnected
hold up.
Why are we tipping again?
Why are we tipping again?
#77
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
I'm tipping the waitstaff, not the restaurant.
#78
Jay
Jay
In Europe they automatically add the tip to your bill. This enrages me so much. Especially since it almost removes incentive for the waiting staff to do their jobs with gusto.
And I'm in the "I'm tipping the waitstaff, not the restaurant." court as well.
And I'm in the "I'm tipping the waitstaff, not the restaurant." court as well.
#79
strawman
strawman
Gusto's an alright guy to work with, I don't know why you'd have to pay people extra just to do a job with him.since it almost removes incentive for the waiting staff to do their jobs with gusto.
#80
Espy
Espy
Oh you're that guy.hold up.
Why are we tipping again?
#82
Disconnected
Disconnected
Oh you're that guy.
not quite but maybe. I don't fit into booths though and I get take out.And here's a picture of him!
#83
Frankie Williamson
Frankie Williamson
You know what's more offensive to me? The fact that more and more fast food/drink places where you order at a counter and pick it up at a counter are having tip options turned on on their debit machines, where you're prompted to tip the person at the Booster Juice who just tossed the banana in the blender that you're paying 6 dollars for.
#84
phil too lazy to log in
Just throwin' that out there.
phil too lazy to log in
For what it's worth, if you tip the guy at a fast food place you'll brighten their day just a little. We're your waiter AND your cook.You know what's more offensive to me? The fact that more and more fast food/drink places where you order at a counter and pick it up at a counter are having tip options turned on on their debit machines, where you're prompted to tip the person at the Booster Juice who just tossed the banana in the blender that you're paying 6 dollars for.
Just throwin' that out there.
#85
Terrik
Terrik
Oh phil! You are so lazy!
#86
phil too lazy to log in
phil too lazy to log in
Listen, I gotta log on like a bajillion times on my phone 'cause it won't remember me and I'm at work and YOU'RE NOT MY REAL DAD!Oh phil! You are so lazy!
#87
checkeredhat
checkeredhat
I don't know what its like elsewhere, but here, waiters and bartenders actually make LESS than minimum wage (Well, technically it is minimum wage, but minimum wage is just lower for any positions that serve alcohol). They therefore rely on those tips a great deal more than many people think. But the management? Their salary is unaffected by that.
#88
Terrik
Terrik
As far as this issue goes, when I give a tip, it's for the waiter.
I have a question though--I know some waitstaff find tips part of the appeal of the job. You do have the chance to make a good bit of money on a good day. However it's often hit or miss, hence why some people get upset over 2%. If a waitstaff job was more like Asia (or wherever else doesn't have such a culture)--with say, a higher base salary but no tips, would you still want to be a waiter/waitress?
I agree. Living in Asia without a 'tipping' culture has made me hate that even more. It does put me in an awkward position. On one hand, I understand that people rely on these tips. On the other hand, there's times where the actual work the waiter did simply isn't worth the 5 bucks they expect from you and they get indignant if you don't give it to them, because again, they rely on them.You know what's more offensive to me? The fact that more and more fast food/drink places where you order at a counter and pick it up at a counter are having tip options turned on on their debit machines, where you're prompted to tip the person at the Booster Juice who just tossed the banana in the blender that you're paying 6 dollars for.
I have a question though--I know some waitstaff find tips part of the appeal of the job. You do have the chance to make a good bit of money on a good day. However it's often hit or miss, hence why some people get upset over 2%. If a waitstaff job was more like Asia (or wherever else doesn't have such a culture)--with say, a higher base salary but no tips, would you still want to be a waiter/waitress?
#89
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
I would have never served tables if I had ever had another opportunity in that time in my life. The bartendering was VERY good to me, so there I won't complain, but serving tables? It's legal slave labor.
#90
Frankie Williamson
Frankie Williamson
All the waitresses I know seem to make more money than anyone else working service. Most of the girls at the old regular bar would pull in a couple hundred bucks a night on tips.
#91
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
How many men do you know that work as waiters? I'm pretty sure they don't pull that kind of money.All the waitresses I know seem to make more money than anyone else working service. Most of the girls at the old regular bar would pull in a couple hundred bucks a night on tips.
#92
checkeredhat
checkeredhat
Its also quite seasonal. My sister used to be dirt poor during the winter when she was waitressing because people don't tip when they have no money from overspending on Christmas shopping.
#93
phil
Gotta wear them low cut pants and show off the D-cleavage.
phil
How many men do you know that work as waiters? I'm pretty sure they don't pull that kind of money.
Gotta wear them low cut pants and show off the D-cleavage.
#94
Espy
Espy
Terrik, if you want higher wages for waitstaff so you don't have to tip expect to see significantly higher prices at every restaurant, coffeeshop and bar you visit. That money doesn't magically appear.
#95
Officer_Charon
Also, as an aside, I finally got a chance to look at Shego's new avatar. Shego as an Adeptus Sororitas? Yes, please!
Officer_Charon
We leave the moobs out of this, please.Gotta wear them low cut pants and show off the D-cleavage.
Also, as an aside, I finally got a chance to look at Shego's new avatar. Shego as an Adeptus Sororitas? Yes, please!
#96
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
Don't kid yourself. What she does, she does for Chaos.We leave the moobs out of this, please.
Also, as an aside, I finally got a chance to look at Shego's new avatar. Shego as an Adeptus Sororitas? Yes, please!
#97
Terrik
If #2, i'd prefer #2. That way waitstaff have a steadier income that isn't based so much on chance and the 'generosity' of the public and I don't have to deal with whether or not to add on another $10 to my bill. The price is the price.
Maybe that seems like a minor issue, and maybe it is. However, other things can come into play as well. In China, I never feel guilty about going into a restaurant and chatting away for 2-3 hours, and perhaps not ordering anything for a good chunk of that time. There's no tipping, so I'm not taking away potential income from a waiter/waitress by occupying 'their' table and they don't feel the need to politely hint that I should get moving and I feel like less of a jerk for doing it.
Anything if this seems like rambling, ignore it. I can't seem to bring together cohesive thoughts today.
Added at: 12:56
Terrik
Do you believe the prices would be higher than current prices + tip(15%-20%)? Or would it come out to about the same?Terrik, if you want higher wages for waitstaff so you don't have to tip expect to see significantly higher prices at every restaurant, coffeeshop and bar you visit. That money doesn't magically appear.
If #2, i'd prefer #2. That way waitstaff have a steadier income that isn't based so much on chance and the 'generosity' of the public and I don't have to deal with whether or not to add on another $10 to my bill. The price is the price.
Maybe that seems like a minor issue, and maybe it is. However, other things can come into play as well. In China, I never feel guilty about going into a restaurant and chatting away for 2-3 hours, and perhaps not ordering anything for a good chunk of that time. There's no tipping, so I'm not taking away potential income from a waiter/waitress by occupying 'their' table and they don't feel the need to politely hint that I should get moving and I feel like less of a jerk for doing it.
Anything if this seems like rambling, ignore it. I can't seem to bring together cohesive thoughts today.
Added at: 12:56
But for which Chaos god, I wonder.Don't kid yourself. What she does, she does for Chaos.
#98
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
On Topic: Women don't instantly make more money in the industry. Women who verbally whore themselves out do. I treated my serving job as a job and not a place to be a fully dressed stripper. I made decent money until I moved into bartending. Then it didn't matter if I "flirted" or not, they paid much more just to have me flare pour them drinks. Still, I landed ALOT of the girls I one-night-stood in my early 20s during my bartending days almost more than I do now.
Still on the side rant: I really need to read some Warhammer 40k. This avatar is 100% GasB inspired from the previous thread about the US assassination.
Still on the side rant: I really need to read some Warhammer 40k. This avatar is 100% GasB inspired from the previous thread about the US assassination.
#99
Terrik
Terrik
I got introduced to 40K through the Eisenhorn trilogy. It's a good a place to start as any.Still on the side rant: I really need to read some Warhammer 40k. This avatar is 100% GasB inspired from the previous thread about the US assassination.
#100
phil
But I could see Slaanesh being the one too.
phil
My first thought was Khorne, because what's funner than eviscerating a dude while yelling "BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!"But for which Chaos god, I wonder.
But I could see Slaanesh being the one too.
#101
Officer_Charon
ON-TOPIC: Something that I discovered that got me tips, as a server was actually treating customers as people, rather than an inconvenience. I'd talk to them, if they had an odd accent, I'd ask where they were from (curiously, not challengingly), and ask how they enjoyed it down here. If they had kids, I'd play with them a little. I did my best to ensure that they got timely service without hovering.
If I get servers who show a little professionalism in how they operate, they get extra. If I get the ones who I can almost HEAR them sighing impatiently, or otherwise acting like I'm taking them away from a VERY important Facebook session... they can fish pennies from my cup of cold coffee.
Officer_Charon
You'll enjoy the fluff. Everyone dies, or is betrayed, or otherwise gets dicked over by the universe.Still on the side rant: I really need to read some Warhammer 40k. This avatar is 100% GasB inspired from the previous thread about the US assassination.
ON-TOPIC: Something that I discovered that got me tips, as a server was actually treating customers as people, rather than an inconvenience. I'd talk to them, if they had an odd accent, I'd ask where they were from (curiously, not challengingly), and ask how they enjoyed it down here. If they had kids, I'd play with them a little. I did my best to ensure that they got timely service without hovering.
If I get servers who show a little professionalism in how they operate, they get extra. If I get the ones who I can almost HEAR them sighing impatiently, or otherwise acting like I'm taking them away from a VERY important Facebook session... they can fish pennies from my cup of cold coffee.
#102
Frankie Williamson
Frankie Williamson
Bingo. It's not called the service industry for nothing. I don't expect waitresses (or waiters) to be whores. I want them to not treat me like my existence is a huge fucking pain in their ass. I know I'm a pretty easy going customer and am not hard to please.ON-TOPIC: Something that I discovered that got me tips, as a server was actually treating customers as people, rather than an inconvenience. I'd talk to them, if they had an odd accent, I'd ask where they were from (curiously, not challengingly)
#103
makare
makare
My favorite waiters are the ones who do the service stuff like bring soda or whatever and then leave me alone. I mean I don't mind chatting a bit but the other day I had this waiter who kept replacing my drink before I had even taken two sips. Now it was just water but still. wtf. Let me drink my water!
#104
Officer_Charon
Officer_Charon
That's just it: you have to find that mix between helpfulness and aloofness. Some tables WANT you to sit and chat with them (older women, especially, in my case), so long as you're making sure they get their food.
#105
LordRendar
LordRendar
Waiters in Germany get arounf 7,50€ before taxes per hour.Tips are usually between 2-5 euro.Depending on the store,the tips are placed in a Jar and at the end of the day,its evenly devided betweem all the waitstaff of that day.
#106
@Li3n
@Li3n
Also known as the one guy who didn't die...And here's a picture of him!
#107
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
Get the Ciaphis Cain Hero of the Imperium Omnibus. Lots of humor, easy to read, and has 3 of the novels and a few of the short stories in a single book. Best bang for your buck.Still on the side rant: I really need to read some Warhammer 40k. This avatar is 100% GasB inspired from the previous thread about the US assassination.
#108
Mathias
As for me, I say get rid of the whole tipping bullshit to begin with and just pay the waitstaff a regular wage. Believe me, the chick at Denny's isn't going to serve you any better or worse if there's no tip involved.
Thing is that that 2% reporting is really fucking with a class of people that depend on every last dollar to begin with (see our tax the rich thread).
But I do agree with Steiny on one aspect. I don't feel sorry enough for waitstaff to really give a crap one way or another. No one forced them into their jobs; if you don't want to be a waiter, find another low-skill profession with a normal salary structure (i.e. Janitorial work).
I run a janitorial business on the side, and my employees get anywhere from 15-30 bucks an hour with like 25-35 hour weeks. They're all part time to supplement their day-job, and the work is literally just vacuuming, dusting, and throwing out trash. It's not a matter of being stuck in that one profession. There are TONS of low-skill jobs out there. From my experience though, most waitstaff are self-entitled hipster douchebags who feel that the world owes them something because they have to carry your steak and fries to the table.
If anything, I wish waitstaff got a full salary and if they do a phenomenal job (I'm talking short of giving me a hummer at the table), then yeah they should get a nice tip on the side. I really wish I could tip the cooks. They're the ones who really make or break a dining experience.
Mathias
Isn't this exactly what businesses do with programmers and other overseas export jobs? Do you support this?So essentially the business should pay more for employees even if they could get other employees who would work for less. And they should do this because their employees need more money than the business is offering.
What, exactly, does the business get in return for this additional cost when they have the choice between an employee that will pay for the fees, and one that requires the business to pay for the fees? Especially if the employee is still getting at least minimum wage, after the fees are figured in?
As for me, I say get rid of the whole tipping bullshit to begin with and just pay the waitstaff a regular wage. Believe me, the chick at Denny's isn't going to serve you any better or worse if there's no tip involved.
Thing is that that 2% reporting is really fucking with a class of people that depend on every last dollar to begin with (see our tax the rich thread).
But I do agree with Steiny on one aspect. I don't feel sorry enough for waitstaff to really give a crap one way or another. No one forced them into their jobs; if you don't want to be a waiter, find another low-skill profession with a normal salary structure (i.e. Janitorial work).
I run a janitorial business on the side, and my employees get anywhere from 15-30 bucks an hour with like 25-35 hour weeks. They're all part time to supplement their day-job, and the work is literally just vacuuming, dusting, and throwing out trash. It's not a matter of being stuck in that one profession. There are TONS of low-skill jobs out there. From my experience though, most waitstaff are self-entitled hipster douchebags who feel that the world owes them something because they have to carry your steak and fries to the table.
If anything, I wish waitstaff got a full salary and if they do a phenomenal job (I'm talking short of giving me a hummer at the table), then yeah they should get a nice tip on the side. I really wish I could tip the cooks. They're the ones who really make or break a dining experience.
#109
fade
fade
In tonight's episode, the part of "fade" will be played by "stienman".
Wow, reading this thread was like an out-of-body experience. Stieny, old boy, this is what happens when you try to carry a pure logic debate around here. You can't do it, because emotion is too heavily attached. Especially with former waitstaff around. The only thing missing was a Tommy Lee Jones image macro. You even went out of your way to say you didn't think it was right, just logical.
Wow, reading this thread was like an out-of-body experience. Stieny, old boy, this is what happens when you try to carry a pure logic debate around here. You can't do it, because emotion is too heavily attached. Especially with former waitstaff around. The only thing missing was a Tommy Lee Jones image macro. You even went out of your way to say you didn't think it was right, just logical.
#110
Snuffleupagus
Snuffleupagus
So on the top end you're paying your staff 55k a year for janitorial work? I own a business and that seems very high for vacuuming dusting and throwing out trash.Isn't this exactly what businesses do with programmers and other overseas export jobs? Do you support this?
As for me, I say get rid of the whole tipping bullshit to begin with and just pay the waitstaff a regular wage. Believe me, the chick at Denny's isn't going to serve you any better or worse if there's no tip involved.
Thing is that that 2% reporting is really fucking with a class of people that depend on every last dollar to begin with (see our tax the rich thread).
But I do agree with Steiny on one aspect. I don't feel sorry enough for waitstaff to really give a crap one way or another. No one forced them into their jobs; if you don't want to be a waiter, find another low-skill profession with a normal salary structure (i.e. Janitorial work).
I run a janitorial business on the side, and my employees get anywhere from 15-30 bucks an hour with like 25-35 hour weeks. They're all part time to supplement their day-job, and the work is literally just vacuuming, dusting, and throwing out trash. It's not a matter of being stuck in that one profession. There are TONS of low-skill jobs out there. From my experience though, most waitstaff are self-entitled hipster douchebags who feel that the world owes them something because they have to carry your steak and fries to the table.
If anything, I wish waitstaff got a full salary and if they do a phenomenal job (I'm talking short of giving me a hummer at the table), then yeah they should get a nice tip on the side. I really wish I could tip the cooks. They're the ones who really make or break a dining experience.
#111
strawman
If I can't convince my clients that I'm a better programmer, or at least easier to work with, why should they pay my $90/hr rate when they can do it for a fraction of my rate?
The only way I, as an individual, can stay on top is if I constantly increase my skills and my value to customers(educating them, working on-site, anticipating their needs, etc).
A rolling stone gathers no moss, and in our economy you can't take your job for granted. Sure, you've been a secretary for 30+ years, but in the 70's and 80's you were laid off because of the xerox copier and the computer. If you don't keep moving, you'll find that moss is actually poisoning you and your career. Now there's one secretary for 80+ engineers, and it happens to be the secretary that kept improving her skills beyond what was required of her when she was originally hired.
The internet allows a lot of work to be done anywhere in the world. Just like the computers and the copiers of the past it will change the way businesses work. Protectionism can't possibly work in this environment - witness the great firewall of china. We can't protect our jobs by placing tariffs on imported cars like they did in the 80s. Why didn't we protect the secretary's jobs from the evils of IBM and Xerox? Why did we let robots into the manufacturing workplace?
We can't protect our national economy (nevermind our individual personal economies) from the onslaught of the global economy - all we can do is take advantage of it, in the same way we took advantage of the copiers, computers, and robots that today raise no ire among workers who would otherwise be doing those jobs.
Waitstaff should be glad that even in our current economy, they can't be outsourced, or easily replaced by machines. It's quite a sense of entitlement to argue that waitstaff should be paid as well as skilled labor, though.
strawman
Of course. I can get a good programmer in the Philipines for $2/hour. There are some things I want programmed here with people I can visit with, but for everything else there's a $2/hr programmer. (cue mastercard commercial)Isn't this exactly what businesses do with programmers and other overseas export jobs? Do you support this?
If I can't convince my clients that I'm a better programmer, or at least easier to work with, why should they pay my $90/hr rate when they can do it for a fraction of my rate?
The only way I, as an individual, can stay on top is if I constantly increase my skills and my value to customers(educating them, working on-site, anticipating their needs, etc).
A rolling stone gathers no moss, and in our economy you can't take your job for granted. Sure, you've been a secretary for 30+ years, but in the 70's and 80's you were laid off because of the xerox copier and the computer. If you don't keep moving, you'll find that moss is actually poisoning you and your career. Now there's one secretary for 80+ engineers, and it happens to be the secretary that kept improving her skills beyond what was required of her when she was originally hired.
The internet allows a lot of work to be done anywhere in the world. Just like the computers and the copiers of the past it will change the way businesses work. Protectionism can't possibly work in this environment - witness the great firewall of china. We can't protect our jobs by placing tariffs on imported cars like they did in the 80s. Why didn't we protect the secretary's jobs from the evils of IBM and Xerox? Why did we let robots into the manufacturing workplace?
We can't protect our national economy (nevermind our individual personal economies) from the onslaught of the global economy - all we can do is take advantage of it, in the same way we took advantage of the copiers, computers, and robots that today raise no ire among workers who would otherwise be doing those jobs.
Waitstaff should be glad that even in our current economy, they can't be outsourced, or easily replaced by machines. It's quite a sense of entitlement to argue that waitstaff should be paid as well as skilled labor, though.
#112
Bones
Bones
you guys should seriously read the American Way by Carville Earle(sp) its amazed me to no end. basically it talk about cycles, there are two classes the protectionist elite and the free-trade masses.(give you one guess who's who in our country) he talks about how what's happening in our country has happened twice before and generally lasts for about 50 years at a time. last time the PE were in charge their cycle ended in the 1920's(hmmmm) and then the government stepped in with the NEW DEAL, and started stacking the deck for the FTM. we had what many people consider the golden years of last century that ended in the late 70's mid 80's with Reagen. we are now again in a PE era and thus basically the FTM are going to suffer more than not.
(i will add that I have not finished the entire book and I am still digesting and trying to understand it all, but its amazing to see)
(i will add that I have not finished the entire book and I am still digesting and trying to understand it all, but its amazing to see)
#113
strawman
strawman
Very interesting - google books has a preview. http://books.google.com/books?id=RCp-l_HxpIoC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=falseyou guys should seriously read the American Way by carville earle
#114
Bones
Bones
http://books.google.com/books?id=XWterUiUBcgC&source=gbs_similarbooks_s&cad=1, this book was written to help explain what Earle was talking about. the man that co-wrote this book , John Heppen, was his doctoral student(his most faithful student), he is also my professor of geography at my school.
#115
Chibibar
Chibibar
I was talking to my co-worker yesterday after Obama's speech at one of our campus. The global economy is here to stay. The world is getting smaller and smaller. We (The U.S.) shouldn't try to produce worker to compete foreign market. We just can't compete. There are laws in place and such which make our cost of production high (safety, worker laws etc etc) so we have to adapt and produce different kind of workers that CAN compete.