Tipping in restaurants

Citation?

Okay, Swish, you say you worked a job like this, complained to corporate or whoever about it, and got fired as a result, right? Now, tell me, was your living situation at the time one that desperately required you to work constantly for any and all money you could get, or was it one in which you could still live comfortably without that job? Because you seem to have a bit of an issue with perspective here. When someone has you by the balls, you don't demand they let go, because then they're just going to grin spitefully and clench more tightly.

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

@ Swish: I honestly hope that your attitude does not get your life ruined/killed one day.

edited 6th Feb '13 2:15:53 AM by IraTheSquire

You know Swish, I have to thank you. I've gotten chewed out by others when discussing gay rights precisely I, like you, also believe in deontology and the inherent rightness of principle. It never occurred to me how utterly condescending and patronizing it sounded until the argument got switched to another topic.

Let me clear, I don't believe you are condescending or patronizing. But the fact is, sometimes you are not in a position where you can choose principle over necessity. Principles don't pay bills. You can't eat principles.

I'm a firm believer that it is the duty of the strong to protect the weak; of the rich to feed the poor. It isn't fair to put the onus of minimum livable wage on the people who have neither the clout nor the resources to raise a fuss.

Rather I think it's on the people who have enough money to open another fine French bistro in Greenwich village to speak up for them. I think it's on the people who can afford a three-course meal with a half-carafe of Malbec to speak up for them. I think it's on the politicians who can vote themselves a raise whenever it tickles their fancy to speak up for them.

It was an honor

Better late than never. :p Standing for principles is good, of course, but not everyone can choose their principles over their family, or health.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

Well believe me, I admire a person such as Swish who's that dedicated to his principles. The world needs men such as he.

But.....we cannot arrogantly sneer in contempt at those who as 0dd said so well, are simply not in a position to fight back.

To use our trusty World War II analogy, a group of allied soldiers can't come up on a concentration camp and berate the prisoners for not having had the balls to attempt escape. No; you free them, feed them, give them a weapon and let them join you. Now, you have even greater means to free the next camp.

It was an honor

Loni

So what do you do if you starve despite your employment?

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.

Isn't it possible to give the authorities an anonymous tip about employees at a restaurant earning sub-minimum wage? If that happened, I assume a government inspector would be sent in to observe working conditions and interview each of the employees privately. In that scenario, how can the person who made the report get singled out as a "whistle-blower"?

When they can't figure out who blew the whistle, a lot of times they just wait for the inspectors to leave and then fire everyone. Anyone left after that tends to be too intimidated to do it again.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

Sad but true.

Another tactic is to declare "Yeah, you caught me, and now I'm too broke to pay fair salaries, so I'll just close shop." The workers all have no job now. Meanwhile, the owners, who have the cash for this sort of thing either sell off the business, and sometimes make a profit, or they turn around and simply pitch up in another location, or even the same one, under a new name, and hire new people.

Meanwhile, business owners talk and the whole crew of former workers are now branded, making their prospects for employment a bit narrow. Additionally, the fired workers now heavily resent the whistle-blower for kicking up a fuss.

It's a shitty situation all around.

edited 6th Feb '13 11:24:46 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor

Well, the obvious answer I'd think is look for another job (be it a second job or one that pays better, maybe both), ask for more hours, or, if all else fails, apply for federal aid and hope you can get it. Or look for a soup kitchen. The fact of the matter is, though, yeah, it is very probably that someone who is employed but doesn't make enough will still suffer, but someone with steady employment who makes a decent amount, or at least just enough, will be far less likely to suffer as much. They might not be able to feed themselves as often as most people would say is enough, and they might not be able to afford very healthy options, but they can at least get something in their stomachs, which is far better than nothing at all. The ideal situation is that they wouldn't have to be concerned with that, though.

edited 6th Feb '13 11:40:28 AM by 0dd1

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

And I question the morality of doing so. What right do a person impose their values on another, especially upon their family members and, most importantly, might result in them suffering? What right do I have to make other people suffer for what I believe in? Is that any more different than, say, a religious organisation forcing people to flog themselves because they think it is the right thing to do?

edited 6th Feb '13 12:38:26 PM by IraTheSquire

Hmm. None, none and nope. Think that covers those questions.

There are times when the right thing must be done even it means your family suffers. You could look at it as forcing your morality on another, but another way is to look at it that sometimes you have to do the thing that leaves you at peace with your conscience, and not even loved ones can sway that decision.

As with all things in life, one must weigh the costs. Blowing the whistle on a company making poisonous candy has to be done in spite of great cost to yourself and your family. Snitching on account of protesting a system, when the outcome of that protest will be negligible but the harm to your family will be significant.....I'd probably keep quiet as well.

edited 6th Feb '13 12:49:22 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor

Or alternatively you could've just ask. If your principles and morals are right your family and friends will agree and are willing to suffer with/for you. Then you have consent and it becomes a case of you family/friends adhering to their morals which are the same as your own.

edited 6th Feb '13 1:04:46 PM by IraTheSquire

I'm with Starship. I've put up with straight-up illegal treatment by employers just to keep a roof over my head and food on my table. I didn't like doing it, but I liked the idea of starving in the streets a hell of a lot less.

Any system which requires the little guy to stand up to the big guy to get his justice is not really protecting the little guy at all. We're fed a steady diet of mythology that says "the little guy wins", but the reality is that happens very rarely.

In the real world, Goliath steps on David, the dragon eats the knight, and the employee who stands up to an employer who is mistreating him will get a pink slip, not justice.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

Pretty much why I don't do it. Also, the manager of the business is a decent guy, and tries to pay us all at least minimum wage, but he's had to skip paychecks to keep the restaurant afloat as well. I could try to find another job, but at least I know my current boss is a decent human being and cares about his employees as people.

It's...not a great system. For anyone, really.

That is a false assumption. Your family and friends may not always understand your morals or agree with them. And even if they do, it is the unique person who's willing to shoulder a burden that isn't theirs.

Ideally, you should also be cognizant of the possible fallout of your actions, regardless of morality. But I for one would never subscribe to morality based on something as subjective and fleeting as the understanding and agreement of others.

& True. It's not that the bad guys can't be overcome. But it's like sending out an 11-year-old boy to face a grizzly bear and justifying it with "Well, boys take out bears by themselves all the time," ignoring that that other boy is 17, has been trained, and knows how to use the appropriate caliber firearm to defend himself.

In other words, empower people to fight the battles you expect them to fight.

edited 6th Feb '13 1:13:51 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor

@Starship: empowering people is nice, but a better solution IMO is for the government to watch businesses a little more closely. As I said earlier, unskilled labor has a tough time unionizing because they don't have the leverage against employers that skilled labor does. This is why carpenters, machinists, plumbers, etc. have good unions backing them up and a lot of other trades don't.

If the workers can't get it for themselves - and history bears this out to be true - then the government ought to step in. register monkeys and waiters pay taxes too.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

No argument there Scrib.

It was an honor

Whereas I am of the option that there is an objective, universal, and absolute morals of "right and wrong" and if two people disagree than one of them has to be wrong, and my own morals might not be always correct all the time, and thus need the check and balances of others. And if they do not understand than it's up to me to explain to them until they do.

Anyway, off topic and return to the discussion of tipping: The fact that the whistle-blower laws are inadequate to protect employees who tell on their employers is a problem in of itself and needs to be changed. Also, the fact that you need a lot of money and resources to go into lawsuits means that has to be fixed too.

Re: whistle-blowing:

Employers can only get away with punishing whistle-blowers as long as most employees stand by and do nothing; there's not much point in firing your whole staff to get rid of a whistle-blower if someone on your new staff will do the exact same thing. So I'd say people do have a moral obligation to be whistle-blowers; it might put you at risk of getting fired, but that risk only exists in the first place because people aren't whistle-blowing enough.

Somebody mentioned that employers can fold their business, fire everyone and start elsewhere though.

edited 6th Feb '13 10:26:13 PM by IraTheSquire

Let's say they fire everyone, shut the restaurant down, and start all over with new employees. What if one of those new employees also reports their wage abuse to the authorities? Are they just going to immediately repeat the whole process?

Yeah, but probably it's going to take some time before people start reporting. After which the employers earn enough to restart elsewhere.

Or at least that's how I imagine that might work. -shrugs-

edited 6th Feb '13 10:39:07 PM by IraTheSquire