3 ms·

> Are they savvy enough to figure out you wouldn't give them a large enough mass raise, but would raise the suggested tip levels and pass the issue on to the cu

> Are they savvy enough to figure out you wouldn't give them a large enough mass raise, but would raise the suggested tip levels and pass the issue on to the customers? They're likely savvy enough to know that if I can cashflow what would have been the tip, it works in my favour. There is good reason the workers (and, quite often, customers!) prefer to keep it a separate transaction. Sucks for me, but what can you do? You don't have a business without staff (and customers). They hold all the power. > Are they savvy enough to rig things to get a higher tip, even though the overall effect is worse for the restaurant? No doubt to the extent that it is to their favour. They most certainly aren't there for my benefit. > Are they savvy enough to avoid getting a "worthless, over priced college degree", as richrichie suggests is the fundamental issue? Perhaps, but pursuant of a degree is always done for the feel good emotions, not rational decision making. Not even the savviest person alive is able to keep all emotions at bay. Sometimes you just gotta spend money to get laid. > Is this request for higher suggested tip rates because they "now are "highly educated" with expectations"? Well, if we look to the historical record it does not appear that servers always had savvy, but that the rise of savvy people taking serving positions has raised the bar (although that could be the result of not having good data rather than some actual change). What we do know is that colleges flat out won't allow anyone without savvy into their halls, going to great lengths to banish anyone who might try, so as a result there is a strong correlation between having savvy and having college debt. Did savvy people start taking serving jobs because they had to in order to service the debt? It is quite possible. > That is, everything you say can be true, but not at all support richrichie's (deservedly, IMO) downvoted comment. Okay....? That's fine. I couldn't care less about what richrichie had to say, and I care even less about someone pressing an arbitrary button that does nothing. > Your response also sounds like I am correct Let's hope. As long as it isn't me that's correct. I can think of nothing more defeating than spending all that time writing comments, and then not being able to learn anything from it because I was already correct.

eesmith 2y ago
I wrote my comment as an objection to richrichie's dismissal of counter staff with "worthless" degrees. You replied with your experience of mostly table service staff, with no mention of their degree attainment. What historical record do you refer to? Servers have always had savvy, and started unionizing in the late 1800s, including a wave of strikes in 1912 and 1913. This didn't require a college degree. https://restaurantworkersunion.org/allarticles/nycrestaurantstrikewave https://restaurantworkersunion.org/allarticles/nycrestaurant... says three of the demands were: "The first demand was for a $20 minimum weekly wage for waiters, which would largely eliminate the tipping system. The second was for a universal eight-hour working day, which would replace the much longer shifts that many had been forced to work. The third demand was for the abolition of private employment agencies, which often took portions of worker’s pay in return for securing a job." As for "colleges flat out won't allow anyone without savvy into their halls". How do colleges measure "savvy"? So-called "legacy admissions" are not based on savvy. If someone is admitted for being a good football, water polo, or lacross player, does that automatically make them more savvy than being a good Pokémon player? If your parents are rich enough to pay for classwork, SAT, and ACT tutors, does that make you more savvy? (To say nothing of parents who have donated millions to the school over the years, and just happen to have their kid accepted there.) I may have done well on my SAT and got good grades (which is enough for many colleges), but that did not make me savvy in any sort of business sense that would apply to a waitstaff position. Acting and improv training would have been better, and that doesn't require a college education (likely one of those "useless" degrees).
- randomdata 2y ago
  > Servers have always had savvy, and started unionizing in the late 1800s The union leaders no doubt had savvy. Those who needed to lean on those who had savvy are not demonstrative of the sort. After all, that's the whole reason people join unions: To outsource savviness to those who have it, improving one's unsavvy standing within some kind of community. > This didn't require a college degree. Well, of course. Some jobs require licensing, but the "degree required" you see on job advertisements is just that: An advertisement. It communicates the idea of "You might like this job if you have an interest in this type of scholastic program." It has nothing to do with any kind of literal requirements. > How do colleges measure "savvy"? They try to measure sexual attractiveness. That is what college sells, after all: A community of people in their sexual prime that are prepared to regularly mingle. It requires savvy to make oneself sexually attractive, though. While anyone can be attractive to someone, savvy is necessary to make oneself attractive to a reasonably wide audience. Being attractive to only one other person isn't typically going to get you admittance (of course, no measure of the nature is ever 100% perfect). > If someone is admitted for being a good football, water polo, or lacross player, does that automatically make them more savvy than being a good Pokémon player? Automatically, no. Statistically, those sports players do tend to be more sexually attractive to a wide audience. > I may have done well on my SAT and got good grades (which is enough for many colleges), but that did not make me savvy in any sort of business sense that would apply to a waitstaff position. I look forward to receiving your application. Someone with savvy, but not the right kind of savvy, would be the perfect hire.

eesmith 2y ago

I wrote my comment as an objection to richrichie's dismissal of counter staff with "worthless" degrees. You replied with your experience of mostly table service staff, with no mention of their degree attainment. What historical record do you refer to? Servers have always had savvy, and started unionizing in the late 1800s, including a wave of strikes in 1912 and 1913. This didn't require a college degree. https://restaurantworkersunion.org/allarticles/nycrestaurantstrikewave https://restaurantworkersunion.org/allarticles/nycrestaurant... says three of the demands were: "The first demand was for a $20 minimum weekly wage for waiters, which would largely eliminate the tipping system. The second was for a universal eight-hour working day, which would replace the much longer shifts that many had been forced to work. The third demand was for the abolition of private employment agencies, which often took portions of worker’s pay in return for securing a job." As for "colleges flat out won't allow anyone without savvy into their halls". How do colleges measure "savvy"? So-called "legacy admissions" are not based on savvy. If someone is admitted for being a good football, water polo, or lacross player, does that automatically make them more savvy than being a good Pokémon player? If your parents are rich enough to pay for classwork, SAT, and ACT tutors, does that make you more savvy? (To say nothing of parents who have donated millions to the school over the years, and just happen to have their kid accepted there.) I may have done well on my SAT and got good grades (which is enough for many colleges), but that did not make me savvy in any sort of business sense that would apply to a waitstaff position. Acting and improv training would have been better, and that doesn't require a college education (likely one of those "useless" degrees).

randomdata 2y ago
> Servers have always had savvy, and started unionizing in the late 1800s The union leaders no doubt had savvy. Those who needed to lean on those who had savvy are not demonstrative of the sort. After all, that's the whole reason people join unions: To outsource savviness to those who have it, improving one's unsavvy standing within some kind of community. > This didn't require a college degree. Well, of course. Some jobs require licensing, but the "degree required" you see on job advertisements is just that: An advertisement. It communicates the idea of "You might like this job if you have an interest in this type of scholastic program." It has nothing to do with any kind of literal requirements. > How do colleges measure "savvy"? They try to measure sexual attractiveness. That is what college sells, after all: A community of people in their sexual prime that are prepared to regularly mingle. It requires savvy to make oneself sexually attractive, though. While anyone can be attractive to someone, savvy is necessary to make oneself attractive to a reasonably wide audience. Being attractive to only one other person isn't typically going to get you admittance (of course, no measure of the nature is ever 100% perfect). > If someone is admitted for being a good football, water polo, or lacross player, does that automatically make them more savvy than being a good Pokémon player? Automatically, no. Statistically, those sports players do tend to be more sexually attractive to a wide audience. > I may have done well on my SAT and got good grades (which is enough for many colleges), but that did not make me savvy in any sort of business sense that would apply to a waitstaff position. I look forward to receiving your application. Someone with savvy, but not the right kind of savvy, would be the perfect hire.