3 ms·

I think there is an element of shitty consumer behavior here. Its axiomatic: people want to pay as little as possible. But there's a certain kind of consumer,

I think there is an element of shitty consumer behavior here. Its axiomatic: people want to pay as little as possible. But there's a certain kind of consumer, who goes out of their way to flaunt that while they could pay more, they're not going to. And its not because the extra $10 for a reasonable tip would break them. Its not because they fundamentally disagree with the concept of tipping (although that may well be the case in addition). Its because the person "tipping" believes that no adult should be working at a movie theater, and if they wanted to make real money, they'd get a real fucking job, and no, I'm not taking resumes, why would I want to hire somebody who could only get a job pouring beers at a movie theater?! Its really hard to overstate the antipathy that service sector employees experience on a regular basis, and how far out of their way certain customers will go to make sure that those employees know that those certain customers hold them in utter contempt.

JoeAltmaier 3y ago
Hm. I definitely don't want to pay as little as possible, for most things. I don't want cheap ingredients when I'm cooking. I don't want a BS car I bought for a song. I tip well, egregiously well, because those folks work hard for their living, I used to do that, and I appreciate what they're going thru. But, as my old minister used to say, we can have all the morals we can afford. Not going to tell anybody else how to do it.
justsomehnguy 3y ago
"Temporarily embarrassed millionaires" again? You know the difference between a staff abused by customers and who are paid below the living level wage and a staff abused by customers and who are paid higher than the living level wage? The latter can actually live on their wage and don't need tips to sustain themselves. Now tell me, do the abusive customers sets the wage or the owner of the business?
- fishtacos 3y ago
  NO one is being abused by customers in any literal way. The abuse comes from coerction of losing a job by complaining to mgmt. v. directing their complaints to the ones that are supposed to supplant the 2.13/h that the STATE mandates. Thsi is not strictly an employer's fault, so hard to blame them for not giving a s**. It's a political deficiency in enforcing living wages as a baseline of income instead of 2.13/h. That's developing world wages, not US wages, or should be, if it weren't the reality.
  - petsfed 3y ago
    When I worked service sector jobs, I was called stupid to my face. I was threatened with violence. People tried to get me fired for making them wait while I tried to help them. I got cussed out how over-priced printers were for how long they lasted, then I'd load their absolute-cheapest Black-Friday-doorbuster inkjet into their brand new Lexus SUV. Certainly, the lions' share of the blame lands on the business owners who won't pay a livable wage. But some of it falls on the kind of consumer who ship at Walmart because it's cheap, but also nods in agreement when restaurants call out a "cost-of-living surcharge" to the bill.
    - fishtacos 3y ago
      I've faced plenty of abuse in various sectors. A "cost of living surcharge" is purely on the owners and is an absolutely insane scapegoat to trick people into paying higher than the menu price, which ought to be illegal. It's EITHER part of the food price, or it is not. Surcharges like that are still part of the price of food/service and that has never changed. What has changed is making people feel guilty because they are a nuisance to the restaurant or whatever s**hole establishment or imbecilic manager/corporate PR idiot decided it made them look better than paying employees crap wages and making consumers feel guilty into enforced "tipping" to make up for it. It's the same for parties of 8 or more policy in many restaurants that require mandatory tipping fees. It's all terrible, all unacceptable. I'll agree that it's part of how restaurants are trying to survive, but it ought to be illegal. If I want to eat somewhere with a group of people or just myself, a cost of living surcharge is part of the meal, but not included in the menu price. That's illegal, or at least ought to be. Not sure what point you are making besides mine.
      - petsfed 3y ago
        The point is there are two possible responses to seeing the surcharge: "just raise your prices" and "I can't believe I have to pay more for this shit service! At least we know its not the owner's fault the prices have gone up, its probably those liberals forcing us to pay other people's hospital bills!" (I've also seen "employee sick-leave surcharge" appended after Oregon mandated that restaurant employees receive paid sick leave, and I've heard diners grumbling about it). I've been cussed at for charging 5 cents for a bag when the city I worked in mandated such fees ("Well, I'm from the next town over, where bags are still free, you shouldn't charge me for that" "You're shopping here now" "That fee is bullshit, get your manager NOW" "OK") The point is that if you work in the service sector, you rapidly realize that customers have a choice about whether or not to patronize businesses with transparently shitty policies. That those businesses stay in business tells you something about the ethics of the people who give them their business. And how those customers treat the employees tells you the rest. The point, as I've made a couple of times now, is that the customers of shitty businesses share some of the blame for their shitty, abusive business practices.

JoeAltmaier 3y ago

Hm. I definitely don't want to pay as little as possible, for most things. I don't want cheap ingredients when I'm cooking. I don't want a BS car I bought for a song. I tip well, egregiously well, because those folks work hard for their living, I used to do that, and I appreciate what they're going thru. But, as my old minister used to say, we can have all the morals we can afford. Not going to tell anybody else how to do it.

justsomehnguy 3y ago

"Temporarily embarrassed millionaires" again? You know the difference between a staff abused by customers and who are paid below the living level wage and a staff abused by customers and who are paid higher than the living level wage? The latter can actually live on their wage and don't need tips to sustain themselves. Now tell me, do the abusive customers sets the wage or the owner of the business?

fishtacos 3y ago
NO one is being abused by customers in any literal way. The abuse comes from coerction of losing a job by complaining to mgmt. v. directing their complaints to the ones that are supposed to supplant the 2.13/h that the STATE mandates. Thsi is not strictly an employer's fault, so hard to blame them for not giving a s**. It's a political deficiency in enforcing living wages as a baseline of income instead of 2.13/h. That's developing world wages, not US wages, or should be, if it weren't the reality.
- petsfed 3y ago
  When I worked service sector jobs, I was called stupid to my face. I was threatened with violence. People tried to get me fired for making them wait while I tried to help them. I got cussed out how over-priced printers were for how long they lasted, then I'd load their absolute-cheapest Black-Friday-doorbuster inkjet into their brand new Lexus SUV. Certainly, the lions' share of the blame lands on the business owners who won't pay a livable wage. But some of it falls on the kind of consumer who ship at Walmart because it's cheap, but also nods in agreement when restaurants call out a "cost-of-living surcharge" to the bill.
  - fishtacos 3y ago
    I've faced plenty of abuse in various sectors. A "cost of living surcharge" is purely on the owners and is an absolutely insane scapegoat to trick people into paying higher than the menu price, which ought to be illegal. It's EITHER part of the food price, or it is not. Surcharges like that are still part of the price of food/service and that has never changed. What has changed is making people feel guilty because they are a nuisance to the restaurant or whatever s**hole establishment or imbecilic manager/corporate PR idiot decided it made them look better than paying employees crap wages and making consumers feel guilty into enforced "tipping" to make up for it. It's the same for parties of 8 or more policy in many restaurants that require mandatory tipping fees. It's all terrible, all unacceptable. I'll agree that it's part of how restaurants are trying to survive, but it ought to be illegal. If I want to eat somewhere with a group of people or just myself, a cost of living surcharge is part of the meal, but not included in the menu price. That's illegal, or at least ought to be. Not sure what point you are making besides mine.
    - petsfed 3y ago
      The point is there are two possible responses to seeing the surcharge: "just raise your prices" and "I can't believe I have to pay more for this shit service! At least we know its not the owner's fault the prices have gone up, its probably those liberals forcing us to pay other people's hospital bills!" (I've also seen "employee sick-leave surcharge" appended after Oregon mandated that restaurant employees receive paid sick leave, and I've heard diners grumbling about it). I've been cussed at for charging 5 cents for a bag when the city I worked in mandated such fees ("Well, I'm from the next town over, where bags are still free, you shouldn't charge me for that" "You're shopping here now" "That fee is bullshit, get your manager NOW" "OK") The point is that if you work in the service sector, you rapidly realize that customers have a choice about whether or not to patronize businesses with transparently shitty policies. That those businesses stay in business tells you something about the ethics of the people who give them their business. And how those customers treat the employees tells you the rest. The point, as I've made a couple of times now, is that the customers of shitty businesses share some of the blame for their shitty, abusive business practices.