3 ms·

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

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.
    - fishtacos 3y ago
      >> 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. And yet the employees' burden lands on their employers? What a silly argument... it lands wherever it should, whether they feel it's customers not tipping well or employers not paying well. None of it is their care. The care is to put a roof over one's head. The details are irrelevant in any situation.

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.
  - fishtacos 3y ago
    >> 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. And yet the employees' burden lands on their employers? What a silly argument... it lands wherever it should, whether they feel it's customers not tipping well or employers not paying well. None of it is their care. The care is to put a roof over one's head. The details are irrelevant in any situation.