3 ms·

> the problem of going tip-free is that customers struggle to get their heads around the maths. Maybe they should show the price "without tip" next to the full

by palata 2mo ago

> the problem of going tip-free is that customers struggle to get their heads around the maths. Maybe they should show the price "without tip" next to the full price, so people can compare. Paying employees with tips is an insane concept, fundamentally abusive. If it wasn't, then the owner would also get paid from tips. "The meals are all free, and we count on you to pay them through tips". Obviously no owner would take that risk, because it is insane. They make their employees take that risk because they can abuse them, that's all.

tdeck 2mo ago
> If it wasn't, then the owner would also get paid from tips. Actually it's quite common for owners to take some of the tips, even though that's not legal.
- palata 2mo ago
  I meant "solely from tips", obviously. And yeah, on top of abusing the employees by not paying them (and relying on the customers to pay the employees directly), stealing from the tip is even more abusive. And let's not even talk about those delivery (and similar) apps that also abuse the tips in their algorithms.
  - tdeck 2mo ago
    I think the ability to steal tips is part of the appeal for some employers unfortunately.
  - hammock 2mo ago
    > I meant "solely from tips", obviously. That was not obvious. Nor is that a common practice
    - Fargren 2mo ago
      Let me restate what the OP said. (quotes used for paraphrasing, not for quoting) "Restaurant owners set a price on their dishes, because if everyone payed at will, the owners know they would make less money. Therefore we can assume owners know that paying at-will does not optimize earnings. Therefore, it's insane that they make their staff work for pay that's at-will".
      - hammock 2mo ago
        Except cooking food and hospitality are two totally different things
OkayPhysicist 2mo ago
The entire point of tips is that they are the workers', 100%. It's also a variable cost based on the willingness to pay, so it creates a form of price discrimination, where those willing to spend more, spend more, those wanting to spend less, spend less. Those two factors lead to the inescapable conclusion that tipped staff make more money. Price discrimination captures surplus value that simply is not available to schemes that don't use price discrimination, and any new price discrimination scheme would almost certainly benefit the employer at least in addition to the employees, if not be entirely captured by the owners. Combined with the, let's say "extra judicial tax incentives", non-tipping restaurants simply cannot compete with tipping-norm restaurants for service staff. In an environment where tipping exists everywhere else, you then get an adverse selection pressure for shitty waitstaff, because if they were competent they would be working somewhere that competency would earn them tips. Which piles on top of the dealignment of incentives to create substantially lower quality service.
- palata 2mo ago
  You sound a lot more like an owner than an employee. Have you ever been relying on tips to survive? I mean someone who does not benefit from the system, I'm sure some employees benefit from it, in some cases. > Those two factors lead to the inescapable conclusion that tipped staff make more money Or have you ever... talked with someone who relied on tips to survive, in an environment where they don't benefit from it? > Price discrimination captures surplus value that simply is not available to schemes that don't use price discrimination, and any new price discrimination scheme would almost certainly benefit the employer at least in addition to the employees, if not be entirely captured by the owners. Would you mind formulating that in a simpler way? Sounds like "price discrimination captures more value, which benefits the owners". Which is kind of confirming my point that tips are a way for owners to abuse the employees. > Combined with the, let's say "extra judicial tax incentives" Sure, the law incentivises the owners to abuse the employees. That is insane, too. > because if they were competent they would be working somewhere that competency would earn them tips "If I am rich that's because I am better, because why would I be rich otherwise?". Again it sounds a lot more like an owner than an employee. Don't get me wrong: I understand why an owner may want to abuse employees in order to make more profit. Humans suck, that's old news. I'm just saying that the whole point of regulations is to counter the fact that humans suck.

by palata 2mo ago

tdeck 2mo ago

> If it wasn't, then the owner would also get paid from tips. Actually it's quite common for owners to take some of the tips, even though that's not legal.

palata 2mo ago
I meant "solely from tips", obviously. And yeah, on top of abusing the employees by not paying them (and relying on the customers to pay the employees directly), stealing from the tip is even more abusive. And let's not even talk about those delivery (and similar) apps that also abuse the tips in their algorithms.
- tdeck 2mo ago
  I think the ability to steal tips is part of the appeal for some employers unfortunately.
- hammock 2mo ago
  > I meant "solely from tips", obviously. That was not obvious. Nor is that a common practice
  - Fargren 2mo ago
    Let me restate what the OP said. (quotes used for paraphrasing, not for quoting) "Restaurant owners set a price on their dishes, because if everyone payed at will, the owners know they would make less money. Therefore we can assume owners know that paying at-will does not optimize earnings. Therefore, it's insane that they make their staff work for pay that's at-will".
    - hammock 2mo ago
      Except cooking food and hospitality are two totally different things

OkayPhysicist 2mo ago

The entire point of tips is that they are the workers', 100%. It's also a variable cost based on the willingness to pay, so it creates a form of price discrimination, where those willing to spend more, spend more, those wanting to spend less, spend less. Those two factors lead to the inescapable conclusion that tipped staff make more money. Price discrimination captures surplus value that simply is not available to schemes that don't use price discrimination, and any new price discrimination scheme would almost certainly benefit the employer at least in addition to the employees, if not be entirely captured by the owners. Combined with the, let's say "extra judicial tax incentives", non-tipping restaurants simply cannot compete with tipping-norm restaurants for service staff. In an environment where tipping exists everywhere else, you then get an adverse selection pressure for shitty waitstaff, because if they were competent they would be working somewhere that competency would earn them tips. Which piles on top of the dealignment of incentives to create substantially lower quality service.

palata 2mo ago
You sound a lot more like an owner than an employee. Have you ever been relying on tips to survive? I mean someone who does not benefit from the system, I'm sure some employees benefit from it, in some cases. > Those two factors lead to the inescapable conclusion that tipped staff make more money Or have you ever... talked with someone who relied on tips to survive, in an environment where they don't benefit from it? > Price discrimination captures surplus value that simply is not available to schemes that don't use price discrimination, and any new price discrimination scheme would almost certainly benefit the employer at least in addition to the employees, if not be entirely captured by the owners. Would you mind formulating that in a simpler way? Sounds like "price discrimination captures more value, which benefits the owners". Which is kind of confirming my point that tips are a way for owners to abuse the employees. > Combined with the, let's say "extra judicial tax incentives" Sure, the law incentivises the owners to abuse the employees. That is insane, too. > because if they were competent they would be working somewhere that competency would earn them tips "If I am rich that's because I am better, because why would I be rich otherwise?". Again it sounds a lot more like an owner than an employee. Don't get me wrong: I understand why an owner may want to abuse employees in order to make more profit. Humans suck, that's old news. I'm just saying that the whole point of regulations is to counter the fact that humans suck.