3 ms·

If you're making the same amount of money as you did before, and you're paying the kitchen staff more, how are you going to pay waitstaff more?

ruined 5y ago
the economic calculus of a restaurant does not massively change based on a switch from tipped service to untipped service. there is still money coming in and food going out. i am advocating that employers be held responsible for paying their employees. the current tipped service regime fails to attribute that responsibility to employers, and leaves employees vulnerable. i have seen no-tip service implemented in a way that satisfied employees. i have seen also it done in a way that drove staff to quit, and in those cases the fault lay entirely with management trying to reduce compensation. stop asking questions about a fantasy budget. i do not care. if tipped service was abolished tomorrow, employers would figure it out.
- mannerheim 5y ago
  > i have seen no-tip service implemented in a way that satisfied employees. Have you seen no-tip service implemented with waitstaff earning as much as they did before? > if tipped service was abolished tomorrow, employers would figure it out. Of course they would figure it out if tipped service were abolished. But I am confident the outcome of whatever they figured out would result in lower take-home pay for waitstaff, as waitstaff would no longer be able to earn more money by switching to an establishment that allowed tips.
  - ruined 5y ago
    >Have you seen no-tip service implemented with waitstaff earning as much as they did before? Yes. This entire thread is just me telling you repeatedly for twenty-four hours that equivalent compensation is the only thing that works.
    - mannerheim 5y ago
      I don't doubt that equivalent compensation is necessary to get waitstaff to stay. I do doubt that it's possible for a restaurant to switch to no-tipping, offer equivalent compensation, and pay the kitchen staff more equitably.
      - ruined 5y ago
        oh well in that case i guess we'd better just cut to the chase, expropriate the owners and collectivize

ruined 5y ago

the economic calculus of a restaurant does not massively change based on a switch from tipped service to untipped service. there is still money coming in and food going out. i am advocating that employers be held responsible for paying their employees. the current tipped service regime fails to attribute that responsibility to employers, and leaves employees vulnerable. i have seen no-tip service implemented in a way that satisfied employees. i have seen also it done in a way that drove staff to quit, and in those cases the fault lay entirely with management trying to reduce compensation. stop asking questions about a fantasy budget. i do not care. if tipped service was abolished tomorrow, employers would figure it out.

mannerheim 5y ago
> i have seen no-tip service implemented in a way that satisfied employees. Have you seen no-tip service implemented with waitstaff earning as much as they did before? > if tipped service was abolished tomorrow, employers would figure it out. Of course they would figure it out if tipped service were abolished. But I am confident the outcome of whatever they figured out would result in lower take-home pay for waitstaff, as waitstaff would no longer be able to earn more money by switching to an establishment that allowed tips.
- ruined 5y ago
  >Have you seen no-tip service implemented with waitstaff earning as much as they did before? Yes. This entire thread is just me telling you repeatedly for twenty-four hours that equivalent compensation is the only thing that works.
  - mannerheim 5y ago
    I don't doubt that equivalent compensation is necessary to get waitstaff to stay. I do doubt that it's possible for a restaurant to switch to no-tipping, offer equivalent compensation, and pay the kitchen staff more equitably.
    - ruined 5y ago
      oh well in that case i guess we'd better just cut to the chase, expropriate the owners and collectivize