Historically I've always agreed with your sentiment, but as the problem progresses, we can't keep allowing the system to use employees as a hostage in its negotiation with customers. The kinds of things the parent is describing have real, concrete effects. Already people are tipping at counters where there is absolutely zero "service" in the tipping sense, just because the machine implies they should, and that starts to affect the system (it is becoming harmful to these employees to not tip, just like it's always been harmful to waitstaff to not tip). The same goes for what numbers the machine displays. This has to stop, and at some point, it's going to be hard to avoid the employees being caught in the crossfire.
It's important to note that this system also unduly pressures customers, who see these tip screens, and if they therefore believe other people are tipping, but they choose not to, there is a fear of retribution or poor service by the employees who, like waitstaff, have come to materially depend upon (or at least expect) tipping, bit by bit. This is especially stressful in cases where the tip screen is shown at the time of ordering.
This is the correct understanding. Management is pitting labor and the customers against each other with this system, for the purpose of screwing them both. The correct answer is to tip zero and leave a comment to the effect of "You need to pay your employees more, not pass that responsibility to me." Employees may not be thrilled with this but it will direct at least part of their ire toward management. Putting as much pressure on management from as many parties as possible is the only solution.
But the question is now: What is an appropriate amount?
Is it the amount that was appropriate for generations, i.e., in a full-service restaurant, 10% for mediocre service, 15% for excellent service, and 20% for truly outstanding service? Or is it the 20/25/30% scale, or the 20/30/40% scale I've seen at a lunch counter, where previous appropriate was nothing or if they had a tip jar, toss a couple bucks? It's an open question, and a screwed-up interaction either way.
Agree, but, if we have to acknowledge it while it is still the norm, how will the norm ever change states? The ongoing acknowledgement and practice of it will continue it perpetually.
How to break the cycle? Comments alone will not work. Put yourself in the chair of a sociopathic corp executive. From that seat, they're still getting maximum profits, still paying the employees the minimum, the suckers\\\customers still pay the outrageous tips so the employees aren't rebelling or quitting, and the comments are mere noise (if they are ever even read at that level).
As much as it sucks for the workers short term, it seems that the only way to effect change is to universally reject the bogus tipping 'culture' superimposed on us by the corporate overlords, which sucks for the workers. It has to suck so bad for the workers that they universally quit. Only then will the executives see any problem and the need to adjust their policies on pay, pricing, and tipping.
I don't like to make things suck for workers either, so if you see another way, please let us know!
Theoretically this may be true, but it's not how it will play out in practice. A few people will not tip in protest, the staff will think they're jerks (which they arguably are), and nothing will change.
If you're looking for an easy magic happy way to enact social change where everyone likes you at every step of the way, you'll be looking for a long time.
All you can really do is raise a stink and encourage others to do the same. Fortunately, it takes fewer complaints than you might think to get even a large business to pay attention.
If we don't want businesses to passive aggressively pass their labor costs to their customers, here's a plausible course of events.
1) Angry customers, encouraging each other over social media, start tipping zero and writing angry comments about why. (A sibling commenter's idea to underscore in your comment that you're going to take your business elsewhere because of the policy is excellent.) Because of the people who refuse to tip, angry employees also start making noise, sometimes to the customer, but just as often to to their manager because the manager is there every day. Now everyone's angry, the negativity is spreading, awareness is being created.
2) A news outlet picks up on the trend because news loves everything negative. They trump it up and claim it's an epidemic across the nation of Americans rejecting tipping culture because greedy corporations took it too far. It's now in the news cycle and it's a real PR issue for some corps.
3) A clever corp that likes to make a big deal about treating their employees right realizes that their policy of passing off labor costs to the customer is generating more bad PR than it's worth. They realize they can generate GOOD PR for themselves by changing this policy. Maybe some smaller business owner is gutsy enough to use this trend to actually pay their employees a living wage and stop asking for tips altogether. That gets headlines, generates more attention for the trend, and helps them get more customers.
4) The revolution is in full swing at this point, because the issue has entered the public consciousness and at least some businesses have changed their ways under pressure. Does tipping culture get abolished nationwide and replaced with businesses actually paying people what they're worth? Probably not, but it becomes harder for businesses to pass their labor costs to customers via the deceptive practice of tip inflation. The world is improved because people were angry and unreasonable.
If you think about it this process happens all over the place within our society. It doesn't take 100% of the people shouting to compel action. Outcomes are a function of the number of people who shout multiplied by how loudly they shout. So yeah customers are well within their tights to tip zero and be explicit about why. Because it won't just be the customers shouting at that point, it will make labor shout too. It is an unreasonable action but the willingness of someone to be unreasonable is frequently what change depends on.
At a quick service restaurant? They should be earning a normal hourly wage. If they consistently get tipped >$30/mo, then their wage can be legally dropped to the tipped minimum wage. That sounds like a punishment.
Normally I'd agree but in this case the OP seems to have been talking about the default choices going upwards of 20%. I can't imagine at most places waitstaff getting to program the payment terminal's default choices.
It's the owner who made that decision and they are ultimately responsible for how they encourage/discourage tipping and compensate their staff. 30% suggested tip might seem nice initially but it might also drive away customers in the longer run. And those customers will never protest much, they'll just leave and not come back.
It also signals that "look, we are going above and beyond with our service, we deserve a 30% add-on", but when in reality their service is most basic, or even worse than before, there is a disconnect that people notice.
Empathy is being weaponized in order to shift the responsibility of wages from the employer to the consumer. In the article, customers are feeling pressured and guilty and are even walking away from the tipping screen.
Part of the solution is to first realize what is going on and not feel guilty about that.
Total expected compensation includes tips. Employees that don't get what they need will either 1) ask for more salary, 2) work elsewhere, or 3) expose the system as some kind of slavery.
Any of these are only set in motion if you stop coddling management's bad decisions.
I disagree. Zeroing the tip with a message for management encourages workers to go to less abusive restaurants or to complain on my behalf. It is literally the only way to provide feedback.
But that's a feedback loop, no? I mean, it still affects the staff so if the staff doesn't like what managers do they either ask the managers to fix it or they quit.
If you're offended by 30% being an option for tips, why not just speak to management directly, and leave what you feel is an appropriate tip to the waiter?
I wish tipping did not exist, but as long as it does, it's not an appropriate way to register complaints with the business as a whole.
The waitstaff is free to quit. Management is free to raise their wages. I'm free not to tip. No one is being punished. I'm not going to be guilted into paying more because mgmt has decided to underpay their staff.
> The waitstaff is free to quit. Management is free to raise their wages. I'm free not to tip. No one is being punished.
This seems to me to be probably literally true but, I think, not true in the meaningful, operational sense. The waitstaff is free to quit, yes, in order probably to be out of a job for at least a few days, to face the hassle of a job search and possible increased scrutiny from future employers, and to experience the same low wages and mistreatment unless they luck into a totally different type of position. It's like an argument that gas-price gouging is OK because I'm free not to fill up my car.
You absolutely are not responsible for underpayment by management, but, if you eat at restaurants where managers underpay, you are no longer a neutral third-party; you are now a participant in that system. To extend your argument, if you don't want to be responsible for helping to make up the yawning gap in the workers' wages, you are free not to eat at restaurants.
The unemployment rate is almost 0. That means if management doesn’t pay the waitstaff enough they will leave and find a better job. So your tip goes entirely to subsidizing management.
In the real world, there is not a free market mechanism by which waitstaff will change jobs because of the tip presets management have chosen for their POS system.
The ultimate beneficiary is the owner since his business model makes an assumption on tipping to employ waitstaff and run a "viable" business.
Business models that rely on tipping to cover basic business model costs should be reconsidered.
For the business owner, they have to consider the tradeoffs if they want to maintain the current waitstaff: quantity of staff, hours, variety of menu options, decor, desired profitability, amount of automation, quality of food, etc.
The immediate beneficiary is the waitstaff, which will no have to reconsider their employment or their demands of the business owner.
For the waitstaff, they will move on to other companies that either figure out a business model to pay a livable wage or consider alternative types of positions. Eventually the surviving restaurants will adjust pricing and hourly rates/salaries like every other normal business. There will be positions available for entry level waitstaff and more experienced waitstaff.
TLDR: The beneficiaries of tipping overreached — don't be surprised by a backlash.
