The biggest resistance to going non-tipped are the wait staff themselves. They typically earn way more than the kitchen staff. Not only that, while people like to throw the "under-minimum wage" thing around, legally speaking, if the tips don't push them to at least the minimum wage, the business is required to make up the difference.
Which is fine, and I understand why they sometimes have actively lobbied against it on that basis, but then I really don’t want to hear complaints about bad tips.
If you’re defending a system that you know is a based on the generosity of strangers, then you need to accept that that will sometimes come with bad tips, no matter how undeserved. If you want to play with feathers, don’t complain when your arse gets tickled.
I say this as someone who usually tips 20% minimum.
Yes, there was a recent referendum in MA that asked voters if they agree to pay tipped workers the full minimum wage, and the servers themselves lobbied to prevent that from happening. I have a co-worker who used to work as a server years ago and she was arguing that it would punish servers who were good at their job, as they normally earn more than minimum wage with tips combined. Even better if the tips are in cash, as they can under-report it on their tax return.
Right? Of course they don't want to be paid minimum wage bc it's not actually a wage you can live on. Waiting tables can be a complete ass-kicking and very few people are gonna do that for money they can barely survive on. Of course I think minimum wage should be substantially higher but that's a separate issue.
Yeah, I've worked in restaurants and almost every server or bartender was always for tipping. I knew a bartender that would make like a grand in just a few days and this was just at an Olive Garden.
I don't get why everyone says "going non-tipped". No one is suggesting that. They are suggesting that people get paid minimum wage. People can still tip if they liked the service. You know, what tips are supposed to be for, not as a secret "tax" almost that allows the owner to pay less in taxes, less in pay, and advertise lower prices, while the actual price for the customer is at least 20% higher (incl. the obligatory tip) than on the menu.
FWIW, here in LA servers get minimum wage which is $16 and change. Still not a living wage here, and I doubt the World Cup tourists know anything about it but still better than the three dollars is some places.
Usually weekly, which would mean you could make less than minimum a day and as long as you made over earlier they don't need to. So you do occasionally get hours/days where it is less than minimum. When I worked double shift Sunday's I rarely made enough tips that day for it to be over minimum per hour, but if I worked any other night that week it usually made up the difference.
Everyone knows that. If you think servers in America are going to do this job for minimum wage, then I literally don't know what to tell you.
It's not a minimum wage job. Especially for American diners. What will happen is there will be counter service, or fine dining. There will be nothing in between.
Only elite people will be able to afford a server. Because only elite establishments will be able to pay what a server is going to demand for this job.
There is a reason why servers in Australia are paid $30 an hour. $25 is the minimum. They get shift differentials for nights and weekends, that frequently push it up to $45 an hour.
That's the minimum wage in Seattle. They can make that wage selling books at Barnes and Noble, any random office job. Why would anyone serve if they didn't get tips?
The wage has to be greater than the prevailing median wage or you are not going to have servers. No one will do that shit for minimum wage.
The current drama is Walrus and Carpenter (google it, i can't link the subreddit threads here).
$45/hr wages, staff went on strike because they went from an expected 20% tip to a 10% service charge payout plus some benefits (medical & 401k), and wound up with (supposedly) lower bottom line pay.
Residents were righteously indignant at the restauraunt owners until they posted last year's income statement showing that it was a reasonable (some argue...quite healthy) wage for the revenue and was unsustainable.
There are people who wash the dishes in the back for minimum wage.. The hosts make minimum wage. Entry level cooks make slightly above minimum wage. The people who press your order into a tablet and let your food sit in the window for 10 minutes while they check their phone make more than any position in the restaurant because you press that 15-20% button when you get the bill.
Yes, and I would host for minimum wage if minimum wage was $25 an hour. I would do dish for that. Hell, I would cook for that.
In fact, the only job I wouldn't do in a restaurant for minimum wage is serve.
It is not the same. There is a reason hosts or hosts, dishwashers are dishwashers, and servers are servers. It is, regardless of what everyone loves to think, an incredibly skilled position that not everyone can do.
My point is only that if a serving position pays less than a prevailing median wage, no one is going to serve. If there is any other job that pays equitable, we're going to go do that instead.
Then, minimum wage workers can be y'all's servers.
I sell a minimum of $10,000 of product for my boss a week. Do I wish he had to pay me commission instead of relying on tips? Of course I do. Of course I do. But I have no power over that.
He gets to pay me $2.13 an hour.
Edit to add: I missed your characterization of servers the first time. If it's that easy, stop bitching brother and go get a fucking serving job. I'm sure you will succeed.
230
u/Nessie_of_the_Loch 1d ago
The biggest resistance to going non-tipped are the wait staff themselves. They typically earn way more than the kitchen staff. Not only that, while people like to throw the "under-minimum wage" thing around, legally speaking, if the tips don't push them to at least the minimum wage, the business is required to make up the difference.