Tips and the Service Industry.

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[strawman]

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.

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.

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.

 

[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?

 

[strawman]

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.

I haven't voted because none of the options really express my sentiment, which apparently is ill-received.

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.

 

[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.

 

[strawman]

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?

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.

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?

 

[Chibibar]

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 would only consider greedy is the restaurant is increase price to cover the charge AND charge the waitstaff.
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.

 

[strawman]

Posting because I don't want to break my streak of almost-every-other-post-in-this-thread

 

[phil]

Posting because I don't want to break my streak of almost-every-other-post-in-this-thread

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.

 

[Espy]

Posting because I don't want to break my streak of almost-every-other-post-in-this-thread

COMBO BREAKER!

 

[MindDetective]

Why should the restaurant cover it?

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.

 

[Espy]

Also, what option(s) would you like to see added to the poll?

 

[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)

 

[strawman]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Shegokigo]

My bad, I thought you honestly believed what you were posting. Almost believed you channeled Charlie for a minute.

 

[Chibibar]

My bad, I thought you honestly believed what you were posting. Almost believed you channeled Charlie for a minute.

That is what I'm thinking.

 

[Ravenpoe]

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.

If the business is in a position where $23 will break them, then it's their fault for being a poor business.

 

[strawman]

If the person is in a position where $23 will break them, then it's their fault for being a poor person.

 

[figmentPez]

Now you're just being a jackass.

 

[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.

 

[figmentPez]

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.

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.

Your word wrangling in an attempt to justify your position is being a jackass.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Chibibar]

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.

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.

I say the restaurant should do it (hence the whole debate)

 

[strawman]

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'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)?

Your word wrangling in an attempt to justify your position is being a jackass.

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.

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.

 

[Ravenpoe]

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.

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.

So yes, it is false. I'm glad we agree.

 

[strawman]

If I'm a one man business am I entitled to the tax breaks that other businesses are?

I'd be fine with that if businesses also got the tax breaks individuals have.

 

[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.

 

[figmentPez]

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)?

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

If I want the server to have all the money from the tip, then I pay using cash or debit.

Debit cards already incur fees, or will soon.
Added at: 16:56

If I'm a one man business am I entitled to the tax breaks that other businesses are?

If you incorporate as a business, then you can get certain tax benefits, and certain responsibilities as well.
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.

 

[Chibibar]

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.

You say it much better than I.

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.

 

[strawman]

You say the business should just charge the waiters, and the waiters should take it because it's fair.

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

btw have you work as a waitstaff Stienman?

No.

 

[Chibibar]

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

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.

 

[strawman]

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.

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.

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.