1074
At least five states are considering requiring full minimum wages for tip earners this year
(www.nbcnews.com)
this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024
1074 points (99.0% liked)
News
23320 readers
3000 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's expected because waiters can't make minimum wage without it. It's not defended because people like that waiters are paid so little, it's defended because they're paid so little and politicians, until now, have seemed to have no interest in changing that. Like so many things in this country, the people have to come up with a patchwork solution just to keep others alive because the politicians don't care.
So yes, I will defend tipping until this is fixed everywhere in the U.S. And I doubt it will be fixed any time soon. I'll be surprised if it's even fixed in these five states.
Tipping is still expected here in Washington where the minimum wage for tipped employees is the same.
Sure, because it's easier to have the same policy everywhere than to not know whether or not you should be tipping depending on the state you're in. I think that makes sense. Do you really want people from Washington going to Oregon and not tipping because they think they don't have to?
It has already become your culture, like it or not. Whether you tip or not, employer has to make up the different if the tip doesn't add up to the minimum wage, so you're essentially subsidising the employer as of now. Fixing the minimum wage will not get rid of tipping culture either, and exploitative employer knows that, so they will continue to pay the bare minimum and expect the customer to foot the bill.
I wonder if everyone reaction will change if we change "Tipping" to "Subsidising", because that's what the current status quo are.
This hits the nail on the head. Exploitative employers will always only pay the absolute minimum they can get away with. If you’re going to have a federally mandated minimum wage, then that wage will need to be adjusted frequently.
Has it been adjusted frequently?
In my country we don’t have a minimum wage. Wage ranges are determined by the market and negotiations with unions. It gets really easy to figure out which employers do the bare minimum and which don’t.
Yeah, I've always thought of it that way too: abhor the underpaying bosses and the politicians who allow it and advocate for change, but until then keep tipping generously no matter the level of service.
If you get bad service, your server might be having a rough day and/or the place might be busy or otherwise make their job of serving you more difficult. That doesn't mean that you have a right to deny them rent and food money.
Pretty much where I'm at. Not going to protest a shitty system by taking it out on a waiter, but will vote to abolish the whole thing and put the burden on the employer where it should be.
That's the insane part - you do have the right to deny them rent or for food money. You shouldn't, but under the tipping model you absolutely do.
I mean yeah, you LEGALLY have the right, I meant that you morally and ethically absolutely don't.
Which is why I'm opposed to tipping as a system. It's predatory. It transfers a moral responsibility to customers that should be on the employer, which provides the foundation for guilt-based social engineering targeting the customer, and a reliance of the employee on the success of that social engineering - the alternative being not getting paid because some asshole didn't think you refilled his drink fast enough.
Imagine if a hospital or something was run like that. Your insurance covered the doctors' and admins' pay, but the nurses, techs, and support staff all just rely on tips! *shoves an iPad with a credit card reader onto your lap*
It's insane that that model is legal for any business.
I beg to differ. I think morally an ethically not letting society dictate. What you do with your own money is the correct stance. If you go to your job and you get paid that is your money and you should absolutely under no circumstances be obligated to tip because society has made you think that they need it to live. That's your money that you need to live it's absolutely ridiculous that people make statements trying to guilt trip you into thinking that you owe it to someone else to give your hard-earned money to them because their employer decides not to do it. Screw that. And no I'm not saying don't tip, what I'm saying is don't support businesses that expect you to pay their employees wages. I significantly cut down eating at restaurants because I don't think that I should be obligated to pay employees wages, especially with the ridiculous prices. The restaurants charge for food nowadays. I absolutely hate the narrative of people guilt tripping other people because they choose not to tip. That is their obligation in right and they should absolutely not feel bad about it whatsoever.
Eww, sounds like some anti-tax libertarian filth 🤢
Answered your own rhetorical question. If the employer was forced to pay them a living wage (or did so voluntarily, but that's as rare as an ethical bank), you wouldn't need to tip, but until then, you're gonna have to pay so that the person who just performed a service for you doesn't go hungry or homeless.
Could have fooled me!
You should have led with that, then, rather than sounding like a deranged libertarian (but I repeat myself) for the first half of your reply
I agree in principle, but in reality they're as like a politician that doesn't accept any form of bribes: extremely rare and in many areas they don't exist at all
Good for you, but if everyone did that, servers would all get fired rather than just underpaid.
Aaand we're back to the libertarian tantrum of focusing on "-I- shouldn't have to" rather than "their bosses should have to" 🙄
So I'm going to be really honest with you. I have no idea what a libertarian is so I liked it up. I don't know if I would consider myself a libertarian but after reading about it I don't really see what's bad about it. Can you explain to me in your own words why you think it's bad? I genuinely would like to hear your opinion about it.
The definition of libertarian I was referring to is the American right wing libertarian.
Basically it's a childishly selfish belief that you owe nothing to the society that supports you and everything would be better if people were left alone to neglect and abuse each other.
That's an unfair exaggeration, of course, but not by much. It's basically rebranded anarcho-capitalism and idealised selfishness disguised in rhetoric about liberty and self-determination.
If you're going to be part of society, you should pay your part and if not, you should watch out for bears.
Ok well with that definition I would no. I'm nowhere close to those ideals. I don't think that people deserve things for free. I also believe that everyone should contribute to society because that's how a society is ran. With that being said though I also am a firm believer that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't affect others. Maybe I should reword I'm saying. What I'm saying is as a customer I should not be expected to tip as in pay the restaurants, employees or whatever. And because this is expected of me, I do not go to restaurants and I encourage others to do the same. I'm saying that this is not how things should be.
First, your server isn't getting anything for free, they're working for their wage and tips.
Second, when it comes to the absolute basics necessary to survive then yes, people who could not otherwise afford to live should ABSOLUTELY get things for free.
Stiffing your server DOES affect others, though.
True, but right now it's the least bad alternative to starving and homeless servers.
Which is even worse for the servers since fewer customers means fewer tips and may eventually mean getting fired.
You're basically taking food out of the mouths of those who (used to) serve you and their children.
I was with you all the way until you said not going to a restaurant is even worse. I think I'm with the other person, though if so they are doing a poor job explaining it. Nobody should HAVE to tip, but since you do it makes sense to vote with your wallet and not go out to eat that often, if ever. Even better if you do go to any restaurants that don't require tipping (though those are few and far between).
I meant for the server specifically, which was clear from the context. Even the SWU have said not to boycott Starbucks to support their unionization efforts, since that's just going to get them fired in the long run.
Besides, the economy as a whole would pretty much collapse with ripple effects all over if too many people stopped going anywhere with servers, hurting everyone except ultra-rich people tremendously.
I've been saying that the whole time.
On the surface, yes, but not actually. See above.
What WOULD help not just the servers but everyone including yourself would be to keep pressure on politicians until they pass a living wage for servers, making the bosses pay for their employees like in all other industries.
You're not being fair in how you judge his comments, instead you're judging them a certain way that fits your narrative.
That vote / change will never happen if you don't push back on tipping, that's just the human nature of the situation.
You’re assuming you owe the server rent and food money. Where are you the employer? How does that server deserve special benefits over the person at the drive through, the busser, the stocker at the grocery, etc? You’re an enabler, keeping an abusive system alive to benefit one small category at the expense of everyone else
Granted, I tip generously as well, but that’s because I’m a pussy who doesn’t stand behind my beliefs
Hey, at least you're honest about it. :)
The cost of paying those people at the very least minimum wage is factored into the price of your purchase, except for the busser, who shares tips with the servers.
Because that's not the case with servers, you tip in order for the server to get paid for performing a service for you.
No. I've been clear from the start that tipping is a thing we have to do temporarily so that servers don't starve or become homeless before we finally fix the system.
Maybe the only way to finally fix the system is to stop tipping, so servers will go elsewhere until pay comes up. Normally I disagree with this line of thinking because it’s not easy to change careers, but serving is usually a “job” not a career. If we’re worried about minimum wage, I claim that many minimum wage jobs are easier to switch among. If a job requires special skills and knowledge, it deserves pay as such.
No. The livelihood of servers is not an acceptable sacrifice to help servers. Defeats the point completely and there's no guarantee that it'll work.
Go where? It's not like they all live in areas that have even a single place that pays servers a living wage or can afford to mo.
To paraphrase Matthew Perry (RIP): could you BE anymore condescending towards people with a career in the service industry?
And you'd be wrong. People work minimum wage because it was the least bad job available. Unless you're part of a union, employers have all the power and afford none to workers.
Every job does. There's no such thing as unskilled labor.
Their bosses and/or their lack of wherewithal in obtaining a job that pays enough to meet their standard of living is responsible, not the customer of the company.
Can't defend the status quo and expect things to be fixed, they're mutually exclusive of each other. Human nature demands that.
You absolutely can defend the status quo until things are fixed and work for things to be fixed. Maybe you think a change should come at the expense of waiters feeding themselves or their families. I do not.
It hasn't so far, and human nature being what it is, makes it a safe bet that it won't. Having said that, I hope I'm wrong.
Also, its ethically wrong to put the onus on the customer to support the status quo, that's the employer responsibility to take care of their employees in all ways, and an employees responsibility to not work for any boss that won't do that.
YES! Tortuuure them, make them SUUUFFEERRRRR!!1!!11!!!!! /s
If the guy in the next stall asks me for a roll of toilet paper (because he's out), I'm going to give him a roll, as a civic duty to take care of each other.
If the guy in the next stall asks me to come over and wipe his ass for him, he's on his own.
That's a lot of words to say you don't give a shit if a waiter can't afford to feed their kids as long as you don't have to give them any of your money. I hope you don't go to restaurants if you feel that way.
You're being intellectually dishonest in asigning motive to me, via a strawman or otherwise, without knowing me.
For the record, I do care, truly, but I also won't be held hostage by corporations via my caring. Its ethically wrong.
Fine. Then don't go to restaurants.
Just did one yesterday as a matter of fact.
I see, so what you're essentially saying is that it is okay for you to exploit underpaid labor even though it is not okay for them to be underpaid. Interesting.