3 ms·

>If some people stop tipping, the restaurant is now paying the equivalent of $9/hour after tips and the restaurant has to pay $3/hour or the worker will quit an

• AnthonyMouse 4y ago
  > But it isn't a straight $9/hr. It is $10/hr some hours, $5/hr some hours, $3/hr some hours, etc. It's basic arithmetic to add up how many total dollars you make in a week, divide it by the number of hours and compare it to what other jobs pay. Then threaten to quit unless your boss pays you as much as you could get elsewhere, or take the other job if they won't. > And as these studies suggest, that will literally kill people. Renegotiating base pay or changing jobs will literally kill people? These studies are correlational. They equally suggest that people with preexisting health problems take more flexible jobs. > The same type of legislation that people here are complaining about. But that's the legislation that upholds the status quo. > When the only work for change is withholding your money, it certainly seems like the motivation is selfishness covered with a thin facade of concern for the service workers. Those are the things that work best, because the incentives are aligned. If your plan relies on people acting against their own interests, how often does that work?
  • slg 4y ago
    >It's basic arithmetic to add up how many total dollars you make in a week, divide it by the number of hours and compare it to what other jobs pay. Then threaten to quit unless your boss pays you as much as you could get elsewhere, or take the other job if they won't. The uncertainty is the problem. Sure, you can wait a few months and do some math to get what your average weekly pay would be. However not every week is an average week. Some weeks you might see 2x your average pay and some weeks you might see 1/2x your average pay. Have 3 of those below average weeks in a month and maybe you can't pay rent. That is what causes the stress. Stress kills people. >But that's the legislation that upholds the status quo. These people don't have benefits. New legislation gives them benefits. I doubt the people who now receive these benefits are worried about upholding the status quo. >Those are the things that work best, because the incentives are aligned. If your plan relies on people acting against their own interests, how often does that work? There are two incentives for abolishing tipping, help the service workers and make things easier for the consumer. An individual consumer refusing to tip is making things easier for themselves and saving money. However, while they claim to be motivated by helping service workers, they are in fact harming an individual service worker. I doubt that service worker thinks the incentives are aligned.
    • AnthonyMouse 4y ago
      > The uncertainty is the problem. But that's the thing tipping creates regardless of this. You don't know if you're going to get 10% or 30%. Abolishing this is the goal. Meanwhile a typical waitress has hundreds of customers per week. That's enough for a statistically valid sample without needing months to figure it out, and it's not likely to change dramatically overnight based on the actions of one individual customer. > These people don't have benefits. New legislation gives them benefits. New legislation eliminates some of their jobs, or requires them to work under different conditions because more restrictions are needed to justify paying benefits, or have their hours cut to below whatever threshold is needed to avoid paying them benefits even though they'd have chosen to work more etc. And other jobs with those restrictions and inflexibility were already available if they wanted them. > However, while they claim to be motivated by helping service workers, they are in fact harming an individual service worker. I doubt that service worker thinks the incentives are aligned. The short-term interests of the customer are aligned with the long-term interests of the service worker and the customer is the one making the decision. That's a great alignment of incentives.