| Author |
Message |
    
eeyore_conspiracy
New member
Username: eeyore_conspiracy
Post Number: 3
Registered: 06-2006
Rating: 
Votes: 3 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 12:38 am: | 
|
We primarily tip because we're afraid not to tip. (See http://www.tipping.org/discus4/messages/9/3378.html?1151385484)
Tipping is really a form of social terrorism. People would rather not tip. People don't actually get any benefit from tipping that they wouldn't otherwise get. But people are coerced into tipping. When people tip, they tip to prevent bad things from happening that wouldn't happen if there were no tipping convention.
Moreover, the irrationality of tipping artificially inflates the incomes of servers. If the incomes were entirely controlled by the restaurant (which is the practice in most of the world), total server incomes would fall, and the total meal price paid by consumers would fall. Businesses aren't charities. Unlike customers, they wouldn't pay servers more just because the customer happened to order something more expensive. They know that the server doesn't deserve more money because the customer decided to order something more expensive.
Right now, people don't pay tips because they think it's a fair fee for services actually rendered. People pay out of fear. It's social terrorism. It's like Mafia protection money. They pay because they don't want to be retaliated against when they return. They pay because they don't want others to think less of them. They're not paying because the server "deserves" that amount of money.
Additionally, that irrationality actually harms the labor market because it reduces the incentives to have an efficient labor market. Tipping encourages servers to do less productive things than they otherwise would have.
In short: (1) We tip out of fear. (2) The amount of the tip isn't proportional to the service we actually get. (3) Tipping hurts the economy by causing people to wait tables instead of doing more productive things. (4) If we were to stop tipping we could save money. |
scarlett
Intermediate Member
Username: scarlett
Post Number: 463
Registered: 01-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 02:33 am: |
|
Gee, where have we heard this before?
Don't bother confusing this idiot with the facts, his mind is made up.
Can we spell Troll boyz and gurlz?
~"What if they gave a war and nobody came?"~
|
goldenfoxx
Member
Username: goldenfoxx
Post Number: 113
Registered: 10-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 03:25 am: |
|
Sorry everyone...you all know I tend to post long when I respond to these kind of comments, but heh I cant help myself...
>>>Tipping is really a form of social terrorism.
Ok so the servers that are in complete dependancy of the guest to recognize and reward the service being offered and given is the terrorist??? What? Tipping is set up to EMPOWER the guest. It puts a majority of the wages in the hands of the guest itself. Those damn evil servers. How dare they!!!
>>>People would rather not tip.
And people would rather not have to pay for stuff they recieved but I live in the real world...what color is the sky in your world???
>>>People don't actually get any benefit from tipping that they wouldn't otherwise get.
The First time. But if they are recognized for not paying appropriate reward for appropriate service, they will face the reprecussions of thier decision.
>>>But people are coerced into tipping. When people tip, they tip to prevent bad things from happening that wouldn't happen if there were no tipping convention.
You mean not having a server provide the service that you are not paying them for? Are you a total and complete jackass. Guess what the rest of the world gets that you pay the price on the menu for the food item and you tip the server for the service they provide...why dont you get it...oh yeah you live in this other Teletubby world... sorry I forgot.
>>>Moreover, the irrationality of tipping artificially inflates the incomes of servers.
Artificially...what the hell are you talking about. Oh you are saying that servers are making more money than they are worth...hummm... Im thinking that perhaps you never tried serving before. It is usually the veiw of people to think others are making too much money and that you are not making enough money. This reminds me of a Dr. Phil show(at least I think it was Dr Phil) where a woman was an adamant non tipper, and they had her work at a bistro for a day. I think it took two hours before her she became a believer in the tipping system. But I could have told them the outcome. Ignorant people tend to have strong opinions based on other opinions and evidence is not really important. Reminds me of a poster we had about 6 months ago...any one remember Homeland???
>>>If the incomes were entirely controlled by the restaurant (which is the practice in most of the world), total server incomes would fall, and the total meal price paid by consumers would fall.
This is an intresting idea...anyone know the hourly wage of Australian servers???
>>>Businesses aren't charities. Unlike customers, they wouldn't pay servers more just because the customer happened to order something more expensive. They know that the server doesn't deserve more money because the customer decided to order something more expensive.
Hmm...have you ever heard of a salesman? Guess what...when a salesman sells 500K a year he gets a commission...and guess whos paying it. The Client. It is included in the price. And guess what the commision usually is, a % of the sales. For some odd reason, restaurants have decided not to nix the client Automatically and empowers the guest with the power to decide for themselves on the service and the reward. Seems like the Guest wins. Oh..btw I sell at least $500K a year, and my employer is very fond of me...cant imagine why
>>>Right now, people don't pay tips because they think it's a fair fee for services actually rendered. People pay out of fear. It's social terrorism. It's like Mafia protection money. They pay because they don't want to be retaliated against when they return. They pay because they don't want others to think less of them. They're not paying because the server "deserves" that amount of money.
Um...seriously...how many people would go into a restaurant if they were subjected to such torture and anguish....they would simply not go out to eat. What you dont like is that YOU dont tip and YOU dont like the reprecussions of not getting service when you dont pay for it. Man, I crying here. Two tears...rolling down my cheek. A Majority of my guest appreciate good service and are more than happy to compensate me for such an experience. And the feeling of appreciation creates in me a feeling to be better next time. Its a great cycle the promotes itself....until someone like you enters the scene... the taker the evil one. Then we sigh...get over wasting our time on you and continue along to those tables that do appreciate us.
>>>Additionally, that irrationality actually harms the labor market because it reduces the incentives to have an efficient labor market. Tipping encourages servers to do less productive things than they otherwise would have.
Um serving is less productive than what...fixing roofs...ive tried the construction trade and quite honestly it sucks. Thank god serving is out there.
>>>In short:
(1) We tip out of fear.
No you tip out of fear because you would not like to pay for anything and are truly clueless to the actual world.
(2) The amount of the tip isn't proportional to the service we actually get.
Um...where did this come from..I didnt see you mention this point once...oh...maybe you mentioned it in your world again.
(3) Tipping hurts the economy by causing people to wait tables instead of doing more productive things.
Um again...where did you prove this point...because you said it...come on fess up..you are really some 15 Year old kid who works at Blockbuster or McDonalds..arent you and the other world you live in is the pre-adult world....come on we already know so you can admit it. Your words have already admitted it...your arguments are structured like someone who hasnt even been to ENGLISH 100.
(4) If we were to stop tipping we could save money.
You could indeed save money on that one bill but it seems the bulk of the argument isnt the saving of the money...its the fear of having to face the consequences of your actions. That you might actually need to recieve service from someone you have jipped out of thier just rewards. And the great part is that you almost certainly will....and it puts glee in my heart just to type those words. YOU WILL HAVE TO FACE THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTION. Welcome to accountability. Its a major part of adulthood but dont worry you will eventually get used to it. Shucks, one day you might even like it.
To Scarlett... I know hes a troll but the response is for the multitude (giggle) of people who drop by this website and read this stuff. Sometimes its hard to convince people to do the right thing as opposed to the easy thing, but I wont stop trying. |
eeyore_conspiracy
New member
Username: eeyore_conspiracy
Post Number: 9
Registered: 06-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 05:54 am: |
|
[Tipping is set up to EMPOWER the guest.]
That doesn't mean it's successful. Tipping conventions, social expectations, and threats of reprisals are coercive, not liberating or empowering. If tipping was designed to empower guests, it has largely failed.
[And people would rather not have to pay for stuff they recieved]
The alternative is no tipping at all. Service fees (which do, in fact, exist both in the United States and elsewhere) and no tipping are both options which avoid the fact that people don't like paying tips.
[but I live in the real world...what color is the sky in your world???]
In my world, the sky is generally blue. I also live in a world in which the majority of countries do not have the custom of tipping. I also live in a world in which alternatives to tipping exist. I also live in a world that isn't perfect. I also live in a world that has a knack for entrenching sub-optimal policies because collective action problems are often hard to solve.
What world do you live in?
[The First time. But if they are recognized for not paying appropriate reward for appropriate service, they will face the reprecussions of thier decision.]
Thank you for granting my claim about coercion. We are agreed that it is a coercive system.
[You mean not having a server provide the service that you are not paying them for?]
No, I don't mean that. I mean active reprisals. I mean social scorn. Those things are coercive.
[Are you a total and complete jackass.]
Maybe. But who I am is irrelevant.
[Artificially...what the hell are you talking about.]
Tipping isn't economically efficient. Tipping is motivated by fear and altruism, not the bargained for OR competitive exchange of services for money. It's a mere convention.
[Oh you are saying that servers are making more money than they are worth...hummm...]
That's one of the implications in many, but not all, instance.
[Im thinking that perhaps you never tried serving before.]
Who I am and what I've done isn't the issue. A person is overpaid when they are paid more than what they would be paid under a free market. Tipping disrupts that free market and inflates their wages due to fear and altruism.
[a woman was an adamant non tipper, and they had her work at a bistro for a day.]
Of course, that's irrelevant. I wouldn't dig ditches for $20/hour. That does not mean that ditch diggers are underpaid because they get $10/hour to do their job. Similarly, I have younger relatives who work on farms doing similar work for minimum wage. That does mean that ditch diggers are overpaid. Single instances (e.g. your Dr. Phil example) fail to account for individual preferences, abilities, and alternatives.
[I think it took two hours before her she became a believer in the tipping system.]
Good for her. But that's irrelevant.
[Hmm...have you ever heard of a salesman? Guess what...when a salesman sells 500K a year he gets a commission...and guess whos paying it.]
The business pays it from profits. But that's also a function of market necessity and risk allocation. The difference between high stakes sales and low stakes sales is that in high stakes sales the salesman can more easily assume the risk of not getting paid than can a person in low stakes sales. Furthermore, the concept of service is different. Obvious upselling and pressure are marks of poor service in restaurants. They're expected in high stakes sales contexts. Finally, the labor markets competing for jobs is different. High-end salespeople have lots of other options. If they aren't offered good commission packages, they can go elsewhere. People in low-end sales and service positions have far fewer options, and thus the business isn't as pressured to meet their demands.
[The Client. It is included in the price.]
I encourage you to take microeconomics if you ever get a chance. There's a concept called elasticity that's incredibly important to discussions like this. The elasticities of supply and demand will greatly influence how much of the cost is borne by the customer. The only time the total cost is borne by the customer under conditions of rationality is when the customer faces a completely inelastic curve. Restaurant meals are actually quite elastic. Not as much of the cost can be passed on. People who say "yeah, but the customers will just end up paying it" are usually people who don't understand elasticity. There are other payment options, including having the costs come from corporate and employee income. That's why knowledge of elasticity is so important.
[And guess what the commision usually is, a % of the sales.]
Well, in high-stakes sales where the costs are transparent, it's usually based on profitability. But, as I argued above, that's a different scenario from low-stakes sales (e.g. serving).
[For some odd reason, restaurants have decided not to nix the client Automatically and empowers the guest with the power to decide for themselves on the service and the reward.]
They haven't changed because it's not generally in their interest to change. The servers are getting artificially high incomes and they don't have to pay for them. But if people started refusing to tip, restaurants would be forced to cover the gap in server wages in order to retain employees.
[Seems like the Guest wins.]
Coercion isn't "winning."
[Um...seriously...how many people would go into a restaurant if they were subjected to such torture and anguish....]
Millions. People do crazy things. People don't always act rationally. Tipping isn't rational. Tipping in restaurants to which you'll never return and when you're eating alone is particularly irrational, yet people do it. It's not in their economic self-interest to do it, but people do it.
[they would simply not go out to eat.]
Your analysis here is very myopic and one-dimensional. It is still NET advantageous for them to eat out. The problem is that a particular part of the experience is not favorable to them. Fortunately, it's fixable. People just need to stop tipping. It's really as simple as that. People can start by never tipping at places to which they will never return. For instance, they could stop tipping on vacations, in airports, etc. As fewer people tip, corporate responsibility for wages will increase. Those increases will lead to reduced pressure on the public to tip.
[What you dont like is that YOU dont tip and YOU dont like the reprecussions of not getting service when you dont pay for it.]
You don't know what I tip or how I tip. And it's irrelevant to this thread. What's relevant is the substance of my posts. That's it. This isn't personal.
[A Majority of my guest appreciate good service and are more than happy to compensate me for such an experience.]
No, they're not. Studies have shown that people don't tip out of appreciation for service quality. The amount of tip variation that's attributable to service quality is a meager 2% to 4% (see my links here http://www.tipping.org/discus4/messages/9/3378.html?1151385484). In other words, 96% to 98% of the variation in tips is due to factors other than service quality.
[Then we sigh...get over wasting our time on you and continue along to those tables that do appreciate us.]
The best part about a voluntary tipping system is that servers aren't the only ones who benefit from the irrationality. A customer can simply decide, for whatever reason, to not tip.
[Um serving is less productive than what...]
It's less productive than just about anything else that pays a similar amount per hour. Other jobs aren't padded with fear money and altruism/welfare money from their customers.
[(1) We tip out of fear.
No you tip out of fear because you would not like to pay for anything and are truly clueless to the actual world.]
It's not about me. I won't entertain your personal attacks.
[(2) The amount of the tip isn't proportional to the service we actually get.
Um...where did this come from..I didnt see you mention this point once...oh...maybe you mentioned it in your world again.]
It follows from the fact that people tip out of fear and altruism. Those things are not proportional to services actually rendered. You didn't "earn" a bigger tip because Mr. and Mrs. Customer decided to order filet mignon instead of the sirloin special. But they pay a bigger tip out of adherence to a social convention enforced by fear and somewhat motivated by altruism.
[(3) Tipping hurts the economy by causing people to wait tables instead of doing more productive things.
Um again...where did you prove this point..]
It's basic economic theory. In the absense of the artificial income supports, server salaries would be lower, which would mean that more people would seek jobs in other sectors of the economy instead of in serving. An easy-to-understand example would be trash collectors. If, for whatever reason, people started tipping their trash collectors $50 per week to remove their trash, the incomes of trash collectors would sky rocket. Some people would compete to become trash collectors instead of lawyers, doctors, entrepreneurs, etc. Instead of contributing an economically efficient amount to the economy, those people would ride on the irrationality of the tippers. Society in those sorts of situations ends up being worse off.
[you are really some 15 Year old kid who works at Blockbuster or McDonalds..arent you]
Maybe. But this isn't about me or your personal attacks. I won't entertain your ad hominems.
[(4) If we were to stop tipping we could save money.
You could indeed save money on that one bill but it seems the bulk of the argument isnt the saving of the money...its the fear of having to face the consequences of your actions.]
It doesn't matter what the "bulk" of the argument is. There can be multiple reasons for doing or not doing something or for supporting or not supporting something. In this case, the money argument is what argumention theorists would call a coordinatively compound argument. It may not be independently sufficient to support a proposition, but it lends support to that proposition.
[YOU WILL HAVE TO FACE THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTION.]
Maybe. But let's say a person simply refuses to tip at restaurants to which they never return. That would be in their self-interest and the risk of negative consequences would be virtually zero.
[To Scarlett... I know hes a troll but the response is for the multitude (giggle) of people who drop by this website and read this stuff.]
Why do you insist on all the personal attacks? Do you really think calling me a troll advances your position?
[Sometimes its hard to convince people to do the right thing as opposed to the easy thing]
I agree. People are stuck in a system of bowing down to social terrorists, and they don't know how to extricate themselves. That's why I'm doing my part to let them know that not tipping is really in their self-interest. |
rev_rund
New member
Username: rev_rund
Post Number: 17
Registered: 06-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 07:01 am: |
|
That'll do donkey, that'll do. |
vitalryan
New member
Username: vitalryan
Post Number: 41
Registered: 03-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 06:36 pm: |
|
donkey, aka, paco...
I am still not following your concepts, they fail so horribly. Here's a good question though. You claim servers make artificially high wages, and make more than we should. Well, how do you determine how much we should make? If a salesman happens to work at a job that sells more expensive items,thus, higher commissions, does it make sense they should be paid higher? It's still the same amount of work.
You would say they are smarter for working there, no?
Your stance that people tip out of fear, holds no water as well. If they tip out of fear, why is it that people working in tourist area's typically do very well? Proof enough you are wrong. I work in a tourist area, yet I've never been stiffed, if people tipped out of fear, surely I wouldn't make the normal 18% that almost every other server makes.
You keep beating the subject of fear, providing they don't return, there are no negative consequences. Yet again, why do people STILL TIP the NORMAL rate, all the time? You are wrong, face it.
You also say serving is less productive than another job that pays a similar amount per hour. Give some examples of someone who works harder for $30.00/hr than a server? Typically, people work LESS hard when they make more money, and take on more responsibility. I believe servers take on massive amounts of responsibility. Someone decided to spend an evening of their lives in a restaurant, and a pretty hefty portion of their income, my restaurant isn't cheap, and yet as a server, I'm responsible to jump an absurd amount of hurdles in the process to ensure a smooth and successful dining experience. This is NOT a 1 minute interaction at a mcdonalds counter. It's a 1 HOUR interaction... Often times more.
You say people don't tip out of appreciation for service quality. Thats fine... go, be a server and provide crappy service, I mean, CRAPPY service, and see what your tip percentage will be, I would GAURANTEE it will decrease by more than 4%....
And again, much of your arguments come from your belief that servers make artificially high wages... yet you provide ZERO evidence of this... I can provide a MASSIVE amount of evidence to prove that they do NO make artificially high salaries... most servers at corporate chains make in the $350-$550 range/40 hr week.. thats hardly a super inflated wage. You forget to accept the fact that about 50% of the time we spend in the restaurant we are not busy at all, or have zero tables. This means the restaurant isn't making money at this time either, labor is high. So although they make a decent amount per table, it all balances out.
So as stated before, why should we keep tipping? Because it works! Why the heck else? |
lords_of_acid
Advanced Member
Username: lords_of_acid
Post Number: 727
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 10:05 pm: |
|
eeyore_conspiracy
"They pay because they don't want to be retaliated against when they return. They pay because they don't want others to think less of them. They're not paying because the server "deserves" that amount of money."
Sorry, but I DON'T agree. I tip because the servers DESERVE the AMOUNT OF WORK, EFFORT, and CARE they gave to my service. THEY DO deserve what they get. If they give me zero service, they are given zero tip. If they give me 10% service, they receive 10%. If they give me 20% or even 25% tip, they receive that. I don't fear in retaliation , I make sure I NEVER have that server again by requesting not have them. If I don't and end up having them again because of a long wait for a table, then I see how the service is the second time around, which is usually better, because I've given them a bad tip, knowing they didn't DESERVE a GREAT tip or even a good tip. I am ALL for tipping, because it makes the servers that are WILLING to TRY THEIR BEST, to do so, otherwise, they wouldn't care if you needed a refill or whatever. They KNOW they would be getting paid ANYWAY, no matter what. If you knew you'd get your money whether you'd work for it or not, I bet you wouldn't work as hard. If you would, you're a RARITY, because people go where the MONEY is. If they return to the same restaurant, all you do is ask NOT to have that same server. If they are too scared to do that, then that's THEIR FAULT for not telling their hostess or host. I've done that before and it worked. I just gave 25% tip. I requested NOT to have such-n-such server. That's ALL you have to do honestly if you didn't have a good experience. KEEP your receipts to remember the name. I'd MUCH rather give 25% tip than to be miserable to give nothing only to save about $10-$15 dollars. I'd MUCH RATHER have a GREAT TIME than to save that money. So, NO, I DON'T agree that people always tip for retaliation. I don't tip according to that at all, I tip according to *MY* service. |
ddock123
New member
Username: ddock123
Post Number: 34
Registered: 06-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, July 01, 2006 - 08:41 am: |
|
This will never stop. |
teleburst
Advanced Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 972
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, July 01, 2006 - 09:13 am: |
|
"That doesn't mean it's successful. Tipping conventions, social expectations, and threats of reprisals are coercive, not liberating or empowering. If tipping was designed to empower guests, it has largely failed".
Nope. Wrong again. Whether you want to believe it or not, the striving for the tip creates the drive to excell, and regardless of what this geographically limited study shows, there IS a disparity between what a great server earns and what a mediocre server earns. Of course, nobody has bothered to try to study THAT.
"In my world, the sky is generally blue".
In MY world, the world is half black for several months at a time. The rest of the time, it's only blue about 2/3rds of the time at best. Yesterday, the sky was grey.
"Thank you for granting my claim about coercion. We are agreed that it is a coercive system".
So? YOu haven't been coerced to dine that way. Coersion exists in just about every aspect of our lives. If I don't want to have to use a seat beat, I don't have to drive. I am coerced to drive a certain speed on a certain highway. I am coerced to pay more for my bag of chips because a saleman has had his or her commission tacked on the price. In fact, you are advocating coersion by demanding that the guest lose the option of paying whatever he or she feels is appropriate (or not to tip at all). A mandatory service charge is just another form of coercion.
"Who I am and what I've done isn't the issue. A person is overpaid when they are paid more than what they would be paid under a free market. Tipping disrupts that free market and inflates their wages due to fear and altruism".
Nope. It's a free market. In fact, it's almost a perfect expression of a free market when the customer gets to decide a portion of the end price based on whatever criteria that they wish. It's not YOUR place to second-guess the motives, nor does it matter in a technical sense.
"Tipping isn't economically efficient. Tipping is motivated by fear and altruism, not the bargained for OR competitive exchange of services for money. It's a mere convention"...
...based on sound economic principles. It IS economically efficient. It allows restaurants to get opened, it offers the consumer the ability to reward or penalize service if they so choose, it provides incentive for increased job performance and it gives the opportunity to be altruistic. What is wrong with altruism anyway? I maintain that a little more altruism in business would be a good thing. I suppose you're now going to deny Warren Buffett the opportunity to be "inefficient" by giving away the bulk of his wealth upon his death.
"The alternative is no tipping at all. Service fees (which do, in fact, exist both in the United States and elsewhere) and no tipping are both options which avoid the fact that people don't like paying tips".
That is NOT a fact - that's an opinion. And your data set is you and your circle of acquaintances, unless you have some polling data about this.
Oh wait, there IS polling data about this:
http://www.icrsurvey.com/Study.aspx?f=AP_Tipping_0702.html
"Overall, support for the practice of tipping has grown in recent years, from 55 percent in a 1978 Roper survey to 73 percent in a new poll for The Associated Press".
So, apparently, the market has spoken. Even in the early days, when people didn't have the choice of restaurants that they do now, and didn't dine out nearly as often, a majority of people still were in favor of the system. Sure, there are some quotes from people discussing the vagarities of tipping. But it's funny that even Lynn makes a misstatement: "You're paying more than you have to for a service," said Lynn of Cornell. "Where else do you that?" This implies that the tip itself is the overpayment (paying over the "contracted price"). But this doesn't account that the tip itself is the payment for services rendered, even if the variability of the payment is based on other factors.
"[(3) Tipping hurts the economy by causing people to wait tables instead of doing more productive things.
Um again...where did you prove this point..]
It's basic economic theory. In the absense of the artificial income supports, server salaries would be lower, which would mean that more people would seek jobs in other sectors of the economy instead of in serving. An easy-to-understand example would be trash collectors. If, for whatever reason, people started tipping their trash collectors $50 per week to remove their trash, the incomes of trash collectors would sky rocket. Some people would compete to become trash collectors instead of lawyers, doctors, entrepreneurs, etc. Instead of contributing an economically efficient amount to the economy, those people would ride on the irrationality of the tippers. Society in those sorts of situations ends up being worse off".
Yeah, as if we don't have too many lawyers <snigger>. Seriously, let's envision the opposite of your example - let's say that garbage collectors are suddenly thought of as being overpaid (they're only dealing with garbage after all). Let's only pay them the minimum wage possible, because, it's only garbage, isn't it? Now, suddenly you have those workers migrating to WalMart, where they can make a few dollars an hour more and not have to be covered in garbage. Suddenly, you don't have enough people picking up the garbage, and guess what happens then?
The same thing would happen if you tried to ARTIFICIALLY reduce the wages of your service staff simply because you have the idea that they're overpaid. That's your own bias speaking, and it's irrational itself. Do you think that service would be enhanced by a reduction in the choice of restaurants (many restaurants would never get built if a full payroll had to met from Day One minus a month), or by a reduction of experienced service staff due to overnight attrition, or by an instantaneous reduction of all service staff due to migration to other equally-paying and easier jobs?
"They haven't changed because it's not generally in their interest to change. The servers are getting artificially high incomes and they don't have to pay for them. But if people started refusing to tip, restaurants would be forced to cover the gap in server wages in order to retain employees".
Absolutely. And menu prices would skyrocket. So, who wins then? Does coercing wages from the guest through a mandatory surcharge create a win for them?
Also, you make a big deal about the lack of tipping throughout the rest of the world. Well, much of the developed world also has a different system of taxation as well. Does that mean that we must follow with a value-added tax instead of a local sales tax?
" No, they're not. Studies have shown that people don't tip out of appreciation for service quality. The amount of tip variation that's attributable to service quality is a meager 2% to 4% (see my links here http://www.tipping.org/discus4/messages/9/3378.html?1151385484). In other words, 96% to 98% of the variation in tips is due to factors other than service quality".
That is a mischaracterization. some of the things that are mentioned in the other "96 - 98 percentile" ARE service related. Kneeling, touching, smiley faces, "thank yous" and candy are all facets of service. Service isn't just writing an order down and bringing the plates and the bill. Great service is about the gestalt of the experience. No, there's not an exact correlation between tipping and service, but there would be even less if there were a mandatory service charge. In fact, there would be NONE. At least now, the guest has the option of tipping according to service. And I wish that there was a way for Lynn to prove what we in the industry all know - there's there's a spread in tip percentage between mediocre and great servers. It would be easy to establish that the percentage of tips is variable (all one has to do is look at the tip sheets), but the problem would be establishing competency. I know that managers look at the percentages in order to determine who needs work on their skills. Been there, done that.
"The best part about a voluntary tipping system is that servers aren't the only ones who benefit from the irrationality. A customer can simply decide, for whatever reason, to not tip".
This shows your bias AND proves my point about it being a win/win. You look at the worst case because of some strange bias, but you don't admit that a guest can also choose to reward or penalize service however they wish.
"[(1) We tip out of fear.
No you tip out of fear because you would not like to pay for anything and are truly clueless to the actual world.]
It's not about me. I won't entertain your personal attacks".
You made it about you when you said "we".
BTW, I'm pretty certain that you're only taking a devil's advocate postion. I don't believe that you actually believe in changing the system. I could be wrong, but you haven't ever even proposed a "solution" to the "problem". You haven't shown how such a transition would be accomplished without extreme social pain.
I'd like to leave you with this thought - if over 70% of people like the idea of tipping (which doesn't even mean that 30% don't like tipping - I haven't seen the poll, but a majority of those might be people who are simply indifferent), where is the problem? The percentage of people who think the idea is a good one is getting larger and larger, and, social convention or not, most people find this system "efficient". Who are YOU to say otherwise? |
eeyore_conspiracy
Junior Member
Username: eeyore_conspiracy
Post Number: 54
Registered: 06-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2006 - 02:42 am: |
|
Well, how do you determine how much we should make?
Subject their pay to the forces of actors who have an economizing motive. Restauranteurs clearly fit that bill. They will ruthlessly cut costs so that they pay as little as is necessary to get the quality they desire.
If in the hands of corporate control the servers get paid less, then we can be quite certain they were getting overpaid before.
If a salesman happens to work at a job that sells more expensive items,thus, higher commissions, does it make sense they should be paid higher?
It depends on the company. Some people do, in fact, sell expensive things and get paid relatively little for it when the volatility is low and ease of a sale is relatively high.
The difference is that a company with a strong profit motive is deciding on the compensation system. In tipping, most of the server's pay is not subjected to the demands of an agent with such a motive.
It's still the same amount of work.
I'm not worried about "amounts of work." I'm talking about subjecting people to economizing market forces.
Your stance that people tip out of fear, holds no water as well. If they tip out of fear, why is it that people working in tourist area's typically do very well?
Because not all fears are rational. Go look at the thread title again. Tipping is irrational. You've pointed out an example of precisely the sort of nonsense I'm talking about.
You also say serving is less productive than another job that pays a similar amount per hour.
That's right. Imagine a pathetic street performer doing a really bad routine. Often people will give money to that person anyway out of kindness, pitty, or whatever. That doesn't mean the person's act is worth the amount of money collected. Much of that money reflects non-economic motivations.
Give some examples of someone who works harder for $30.00/hr than a server?
Working harder isn't important. Productivity doesn't refer to how hard something is.
Typically, people work LESS hard when they make more money, and take on more responsibility.
And how "hard" one works isn't productivity. Productivity is about the production of goods and services. You can produce goods and services without working hard. You can do it while working your ass to the bone.
I believe servers take on massive amounts of responsibility.
And yet teenagers are massively overrepresented as servers compared to other industries and compared to overall demographics. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, around one-fourth of food and beverage serving and related workers were 16 to 19 years old—about six times the proportion for all workers.
You say people don't tip out of appreciation for service quality. Thats fine... go, be a server and provide crappy service, I mean, CRAPPY service, and see what your tip percentage will be, I would GAURANTEE it will decrease by more than 4%.
I notice how you have to really exaggerate your point to get it to gain any traction at all. You know fully well that most people tip quite flatly unless the service is extraoridinary in some way (either on the good end or the bad).
I can provide a MASSIVE amount of evidence to prove that they do NO make artificially high salaries... most servers at corporate chains make in the $350-$550 range/40 hr week.. thats hardly a super inflated wage.
It is if they would be paid less if their wages would wholly controlled by agents with strong economizing motives.
You forget to accept the fact that about 50% of the time we spend in the restaurant we are not busy at all, or have zero tables.
I don't care. If you're being paid more with tips than you would be if your wages were controlled by those with a strong economizing motive, then you're overpaid. And, really, what do you have to worry about? If you're so confident that servers aren't overpaid, then they really have little to lose.
So as stated before, why should we keep tipping?
Because it's a tradition/convention. Because people don't know how to stop it. Because people are afraid of speaking out against it. |
eeyore_conspiracy
Junior Member
Username: eeyore_conspiracy
Post Number: 55
Registered: 06-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2006 - 03:17 am: |
|
and regardless of what this geographically limited study shows, there IS a disparity between what a great server earns and what a mediocre server earns. Of course, nobody has bothered to try to study THAT.
Do tell! What area was it limited to? And please show me precisely from where you're deriving your claim that good and bad servers weren't studied.
Coersion exists in just about every aspect of our lives.
And if we can reduce coercion while achieving a neutral or net advantageous outcome, we should do that.
A mandatory service charge is just another form of coercion.
It's far less insidious. For example, mandatory service charges don't encourage racism. And we all know fully well that tipping promotes racist actions on the parts of both diners and servers. Mandatory service charges don't cause social retaliation from one's dining partners.
Nope. It's a free market. In fact, it's almost a perfect expression of a free market when the customer gets to decide a portion of the end price based on whatever criteria that they wish.
1/4 of people leave a tip that's the same almost independent of service quality. That's not a free market. That's habit, convention, fear, altruism, neuroticism, and a host of other factors at work.
...based on sound economic principles. It IS economically efficient. It allows restaurants to get opened,
It subsidizes restaurants and too many open. That's bad it wastes resources.
it offers the consumer the ability to reward or penalize service if they so choose,
Of course it does. But that doesn't mean it's free from defects.
it provides incentive for increased job performance and it gives the opportunity to be altruistic.
And many people take that opportunity. And that taken opportunity inflates their incomes beyond an efficient level.
What is wrong with altruism anyway?
It causes too many restaurants to be opened. It causes other industries to lose workers to a less productive field. It boosts the total average meal cost for customers.
I maintain that a little more altruism in business would be a good thing. I suppose you're now going to deny Warren Buffett the opportunity to be "inefficient" by giving away the bulk of his wealth upon his death.
Your supposition would be wrong. First of all, he's not injecting his money into fields that already have strong economic competition. In fact, Gates and Buffet are looking for fields that don't have strong economic competition precisely so they don't distort markets. Second, Buffet spent decades being a hard ass business man. He's wealthy precisely because he didn't tolerate inefficiency and he demanded objective evidence of value.
"Overall, support for the practice of tipping has grown in recent years, from 55 percent in a 1978 Roper survey to 73 percent in a new poll for The Associated Press".
They don't even give the question. "Support" is the AP's interpretation. Poll numbers are useless without the questions.
But it's funny that even Lynn makes a misstatement: "You're paying more than you have to for a service," said Lynn of Cornell. "Where else do you that?"
Why is he wrong? Why aren't you the one who is wrong? In the absence of a clear reason to prefer your claim, I'll go with the expert. Where's your Ph.D. in the field?
Seriously, let's envision the opposite of your example - let's say that garbage collectors are suddenly thought of as being overpaid (they're only dealing with garbage after all).
I like how you think you can get away with not answering arguments by simply ignoring them.
Let's only pay them the minimum wage possible, because, it's only garbage, isn't it? Now, suddenly you have those workers migrating to WalMart, where they can make a few dollars an hour more and not have to be covered in garbage. Suddenly, you don't have enough people picking up the garbage, and guess what happens then?
What happens? The garbage collection services lose money to the other garbage collection companies who pay their employees the rate necessary to accomplish their business objectives. Oh, what's that you say? You've never heard of garbage companies competing? That's because you probably assume that only one company can pick up garbage. But you'd be wrong. There are many areas around the country where there are, in fact, privatized garbage collectors. And if a garbage company failed to pick up the trash because it didn't appropriately pay its people, the customers would shift to the company that paid its workers appropriately.
That was a very easy example to answer. You ignored my argument because it's much harder for you to answer.
The same thing would happen if you tried to ARTIFICIALLY reduce the wages of your service staff simply because you have the idea that they're overpaid.
I don't care. I'm not talking about an artificial reduction. An artificial reduction would be something like a government cap on their incomes. I'm clearly not proposing anything like that. I'm saying that we should subject their wages to the economizing pressures that the restaurant itself would place on them. That's not artificial.
Do you think that service would be enhanced by a reduction in the choice of restaurants (many restaurants would never get built if a full payroll had to met from Day One minus a month)
There are too many restaurants being built because it's too easy given that restaurant payrolls are essentially subsidized by the irrationality of tipping customers. I do, in fact, think we would be better off with fewer failed restaurants. People need to take risks in light of the market forces, not while being boosted along by subsidies.
Absolutely. And menu prices would skyrocket.
By an amount less than the previous total menu cost including tips. That's perfectly fine with me. I'm not going to discuss this more here because it's on one of the other threads.
Also, you make a big deal about the lack of tipping throughout the rest of the world. Well, much of the developed world also has a different system of taxation as well.
What does that have to do with anything?
That is a mischaracterization. some of the things that are mentioned in the other "96 - 98 percentile" ARE service related.
I'm not answering this again here. I've answered it on other threads. In fact, I think I answered it in response to you. We don't need to type everything multiple times, do we?
No, there's not an exact correlation between tipping and service, but there would be even less if there were a mandatory service charge.
Until management started kicking asses and implementing incentive programs.
And I wish that there was a way for Lynn to prove what we in the industry all know - there's there's a spread in tip percentage between mediocre and great servers.
There is. All you have to do is look at the raw data. If you really wanted to know, you could e-mail him and ask for it. You could look up his study and see the studies he cited. All you'd have to do is compare the tips of those higly rated with the tips of those who were rated poorly.
you haven't ever even proposed a "solution" to the "problem".
People should stop tipping in places in which the benefit to them is most clear. Those places are amusement parks, hotel restaurants, airports, and other places where they won't return. If they want to stop tipping alone at first, that's fine. As people stop tipping, servers will start complaining. That will force restaurants to deal with their unhappy servers. Restaurants will start getting creative in their incentive, bonus, and wage programs. In the meantime, as tipping participation drops, it's power as a social convention will decline. It's easy to assume now that virtually everyone tips and supports it. But as a significant minority grows, people will feel more free to challenge it. It will unravel from there.
You haven't shown how such a transition would be accomplished without extreme social pain.
I just did. |
goldenfoxx
Member
Username: goldenfoxx
Post Number: 122
Registered: 10-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2006 - 03:33 am: |
|
I think I figured you out eeyore_conspiracy. Somewhere back in the history of your childhood, someone told you that the more school you go to, the higher your pay will be. So you probably went to alot of school or are planning to and then you found out how much money you are actually going to make or are making.
A friend of mine did this as well. He went to school for several years, got a Masters degree and a huge school loan. And then he went out to get a job and realized how much money he was going to make being middle management. It made for some very intresting discussions...especially when he would talk about us not tipping out management. We were good friends but it would certainly irratate him when I would bring home $200+ for what he said was an "unskilled job". I told him I could get him a jacket his size and train him on the menu.
He esentailly didnt want to do that because "he had his degree" and that was above him. He was still living by the concept that more school= More money. When what it really means is More school=more prestige. The real world is the money you are worth is what people are willing to pay you. And I think this is what is frustrating to people like you.
And that is why it is frustrating to me when people like conspiracy come onto this website and promptly say servers are crap...tipping sucks ...why should I be forced to tip? No one is forcing you, but if tipping stops;
A) either be prepared to pay significantly higher priced menu items.
B)be prepared to speak spanish.
or
c)be prepared to go to a place that doesnt expect tipping...like one of the multitude of places that ALREADY EXIST.
Thank you ..have a nice day. |
eeyore_conspiracy
Junior Member
Username: eeyore_conspiracy
Post Number: 60
Registered: 06-2006
Rating: 
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2006 - 03:56 am: |
|
I think I figured you out eeyore_conspiracy. Somewhere back in the history of your childhood, someone told you that the more school you go to, the higher your pay will be.
To be sure, there's a positive correlation. But I was also taught about nuance. I know that the median and average Ph.D. makes less than the average and median M.D., J.D., and M.B.A.
But, again, you're trying to go for some sort of character attack, and I simply don't play that game. |
penelopemarie
New member
Username: penelopemarie
Post Number: 2
Registered: 06-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2006 - 11:13 am: |
|
yes eeyore you can dress it up how ever you want and blame it on character attack. it doesn't mean he is not right, if it is a character attack then it is a personal attack, which means that what he wrote is personal to you, which means it must ring a little bell in the back of your head. for someone that doesn't play character games you sure like "attacking" all the other people that either work for tips, or follow the system. |
teleburst
Advanced Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 985
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2006 - 12:48 pm: |
|
"To be sure, there's a positive correlation. But I was also taught about nuance".
Shame you didn't learn the lesson. |
teleburst
Advanced Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 986
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2006 - 12:57 pm: |
|
"and regardless of what this geographically limited study shows, there IS a disparity between what a great server earns and what a mediocre server earns. Of course, nobody has bothered to try to study THAT.
Do tell! What area was it limited to?"
If I remember correctly, the study was done in the Northeast. I want to say the Mass. area, but I could be conflating that with Lynn's location. I can't find a link to the exact study though, and it's been several years since I read the study itself. If you have a link to it, you might post it.
"And please show me precisely from where you're deriving your claim that good and bad servers weren't studied".
That wasn't part of the study. I'm talking about looking at the difference between individual servers in different levels of proficiency. I KNOW that this wasn't done.
"Coersion exists in just about every aspect of our lives.
And if we can reduce coercion while achieving a neutral or net advantageous outcome, we should do that".
You haven't shown that this would be the case. I've shown that the downsides far outweight the upsides.
"A mandatory service charge is just another form of coercion.
It's far less insidious".
Is this the case of your nuance at work? I'd maintain that it's simply a case of defending something that you personally believe at all costs.
"Nope. It's a free market. In fact, it's almost a perfect expression of a free market when the customer gets to decide a portion of the end price based on whatever criteria that they wish.
1/4 of people leave a tip that's the same almost independent of service quality. That's not a free market".
Sure it is. You recently proved that when you made the claim that tipping is totally voluntary AND pointing out the the guest is in essence the employer. The employer gets to pay what they want using whatever factors, criteria, and personal feelings that they want (within the law of course). |
teleburst
Advanced Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 987
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2006 - 01:10 pm: |
|
"...based on sound economic principles. It IS economically efficient. It allows restaurants to get opened,
It subsidizes restaurants and too many open. That's bad it wastes resources".
Nope. Our culture demands a proliferation of restaurants. Many fail because it's a tough business. None fail because of tipping. Once again, yours is a solution in search of a problem.
"it offers the consumer the ability to reward or penalize service if they so choose,
Of course it does".
Yep, I'm right again.
"But that doesn't mean it's free from defects".
Nor would a mandatory service charge. So what?
"it provides incentive for increased job performance and it gives the opportunity to be altruistic.
And many people take that opportunity. And that taken opportunity inflates their incomes beyond an efficient level".
I think you misstated your position. You might want to try again.
"What is wrong with altruism anyway?
It causes too many restaurants to be opened. It causes other industries to lose workers to a less productive field".
You mean like that highly automated t-shirt manufacturer that you mentioned? I'm guessing that many of those "displaced workers" that you claim could find work in other industries might very well have been absorbed into the restaurant business (which is, I think, the largest employer in the US).
"It boosts the total average meal cost for customers".
You claim otherwise. You claim that a mandatory service charge would be a wash, right?
"I maintain that a little more altruism in business would be a good thing. I suppose you're now going to deny Warren Buffett the opportunity to be "inefficient" by giving away the bulk of his wealth upon his death.
Your supposition would be wrong. First of all, he's not injecting his money into fields that already have strong economic competition".
So? It's still altruism at base.
"In fact, Gates and Buffet are looking for fields that don't have strong economic competition precisely so they don't distort markets".
This has nothing to do with "markets".
"Second, Buffet spent decades being a hard ass business man. He's wealthy precisely because he didn't tolerate inefficiency and he demanded objective evidence of value".
Which is why he's invested in the restaurant business. Of course, it would be impossible for him to invest in my current restaurant as a stockholder. |
teleburst
Advanced Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 988
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2006 - 01:22 pm: |
|
""Overall, support for the practice of tipping has grown in recent years, from 55 percent in a 1978 Roper survey to 73 percent in a new poll for The Associated Press".
They don't even give the question. "Support" is the AP's interpretation. Poll numbers are useless without the questions".
You posted a link to an article about Lynn's study that didn't "list the questions". It was an interpretive article as well. You are a bit of a piece of work because you expect us to take things at face value but then deny us the right to have you do the same. If you wish to say that the company that did the polling for AP misstated the poll when they said, """Overall, support for the practice of tipping has grown in recent years, from 55 percent in a 1978 Roper survey to 73 percent in a new poll for The Associated Press", if you think that they aren't capable of distilling the data into a concise digestable form, if you think that they're LYING, fine. Just to pretend that you are furthering your argument.
"But it's funny that even Lynn makes a misstatement: "You're paying more than you have to for a service," said Lynn of Cornell. "Where else do you that?"
Why is he wrong"?
I guess you edited that out. He's wrong because the tip IS paying for the service. Someone is only paying more for the service if somehow they pay more than they intended. The implication of his statement is that the payment of the tip itself is overpayment (amount paid over and above the menu price). But that's wrong as well, because the tip IS the payment for services, because they aren't covered by the menu price. If they were, a restaurant couldn't pay 2.13 an hour and prices on the menu would self-adjust much higher.
"Why aren't you the one who is wrong? In the absence of a clear reason to prefer your claim, I'll go with the expert. Where's your Ph.D. in the field"?
Feel free.
"Seriously, let's envision the opposite of your example - let's say that garbage collectors are suddenly thought of as being overpaid (they're only dealing with garbage after all).
I like how you think you can get away with not answering arguments by simply ignoring them".
I'm just following your example of ignoring emperical data regarding the costs of payroll that I took the time to supply.
<shrug> |
teleburst
Advanced Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 989
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2006 - 01:34 pm: |
|
"What happens? The garbage collection services lose money to the other garbage collection companies who pay their employees the rate necessary to accomplish their business objectives".
Nope, they're ALL now paying minimum wage.
"Oh, what's that you say? You've never heard of garbage companies competing"?
So where's the "competition" enherent in requiring a mandatory service charge for all restaurants as you seem to demand? In every system that you tout, mandatory service charges are constant across the market.
"That's because you probably assume that only one company can pick up garbage".
You're wrong. I was speaking as an industry, which is what you're talking about when you want to totally eliminate tipping.
You lose.
Again.
"But you'd be wrong. There are many areas around the country where there are, in fact, privatized garbage collectors. And if a garbage company failed to pick up the trash because it didn't appropriately pay its people, the customers would shift to the company that paid its workers appropriately".
Except that they're having the same problem attracting workers. Their workers are now working in restaurants <g>.
"That was a very easy example to answer".
Excpet that you blew it.
"You ignored my argument because it's much harder for you to answer.
The same thing would happen if you tried to ARTIFICIALLY reduce the wages of your service staff simply because you have the idea that they're overpaid.
I don't care".
Of course you don't. You ignore those aspects that don't fit your cherry-picked-based conclusions.
"I'm not talking about an artificial reduction".
Yes you are, unless you're willing to grant the same compensation that is currently being made to servers.
"An artificial reduction would be something like a government cap on their incomes. I'm clearly not proposing anything like that".
No, you're proposing that servers are currently overpaid and that their income should be reduced.
"I'm saying that we should subject their wages to the economizing pressures that the restaurant itself would place on them. That's not artificial".
And I've shown that without a substantial menu increase HIGHER than a one-to-one ratio of menu price increase to payroll needs. But you just ignored that data. <shrug>
"Do you think that service would be enhanced by a reduction in the choice of restaurants (many restaurants would never get built if a full payroll had to met from Day One minus a month)
There are too many restaurants being built because it's too easy given that restaurant payrolls are essentially subsidized by the irrationality of tipping customers".
You're speaking out of your element. It is NOT easy to build a restaurant, even under this current tipping scheme (scheme used in the British usage of the word, I might add). You need to do some research into the difficulties of raising capital for anything other than large, deep-pocket organizations. All you have to do to find out is call your local banker and ask them about opening a restaurant.
"I do, in fact, think we would be better off with fewer failed restaurants. People need to take risks in light of the market forces, not while being boosted along by subsidies".
That's your opinion only; it's not a "factual statement".
Absolutely. And menu prices would skyrocket.
By an amount less than the previous total menu cost including tips. That's perfectly fine with me. I'm not going to discuss this more here because it's on one of the other threads. |
teleburst
Advanced Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 990
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2006 - 01:44 pm: |
|
"Absolutely. And menu prices would skyrocket.
By an amount less than the previous total menu cost including tips".
I showed otherwise. You ignored it.
"That's perfectly fine with me. I'm not going to discuss this more here because it's on one of the other threads".
You really didn't "discuss" it then either. Cool.
" Also, you make a big deal about the lack of tipping throughout the rest of the world. Well, much of the developed world also has a different system of taxation as well.
What does that have to do with anything"?
About as much as garbagemen. Seriously, it has to do with your using the fact that the rest of the world does something as justification for your position. On that very bill that you got in the bistro on the Left Bank, you paid not only a 15% service charge included in the menu price but also paid a 16% VAT on top of that.
"That is a mischaracterization. some of the things that are mentioned in the other "96 - 98 percentile" ARE service related.
I'm not answering this again here. I've answered it on other threads".
I didn't see it. I saw you claim that those "other factors" WEREN'T indeed part of service. I'm claiming that they are (with the exception of a "sunny day" that is - of course, servers pray for rainy days since it tends to drive up volume).
"In fact, I think I answered it in response to you".
I don't think you did, unless I missed it. If so, I'll catch it as I work my way back through the threads.
" We don't need to type everything multiple times, do we"?
Are we being snide here? Was this a "personal attack"?
"No, there's not an exact correlation between tipping and service, but there would be even less if there were a mandatory service charge.
Until management started kicking asses and implementing incentive programs".
Which has nothing to do with the correlation between a service charge and service.
BTW, incentive programs are already being implemented by management, even within the tipping system. |
teleburst
Advanced Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 991
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2006 - 01:47 pm: |
|
"you haven't ever even proposed a "solution" to the "problem".
People should stop tipping in places in which the benefit to them is most clear. Those places are amusement parks, hotel restaurants, airports, and other places where they won't return. If they want to stop tipping alone at first, that's fine. As people stop tipping, servers will start complaining. That will force restaurants to deal with their unhappy servers. Restaurants will start getting creative in their incentive, bonus, and wage programs. In the meantime, as tipping participation drops, it's power as a social convention will decline. It's easy to assume now that virtually everyone tips and supports it. But as a significant minority grows, people will feel more free to challenge it. It will unravel from there.
You haven't shown how such a transition would be accomplished without extreme social pain.
I just did".
Best of luck in your windmill-tilting. |
teleburst
Advanced Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 993
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2006 - 02:16 pm: |
|
"You posted a link to an article about Lynn's study that didn't "list the questions". It was an interpretive article as well. You are a bit of a piece of work because you expect us to take things at face value but then deny us the right to have you do the same. If you wish to say that the company that did the polling for AP misstated the poll when they said, """Overall, support for the practice of tipping has grown in recent years, from 55 percent in a 1978 Roper survey to 73 percent in a new poll for The Associated Press", if you think that they aren't capable of distilling the data into a concise digestable form, if you think that they're LYING, fine. Just _to_ pretend that you are furthering your argument.
...should read "just _don't_ pretend..."
Sorry. |
|