[Gothos]

$500 is just about my salary

[Shinrei]

Macros asked me to revive this


I have spoken with some Aussies and Brits about this subject recently, and what seems to be the trend amongst those who hate American tipping culture ala Macros is they feel there is something "dishonest" about it.

I would counter with, if the host culture of consumers (the restaurant goers) do not feel it is dishonest, isn't it a matter of aculturation to a certain practice? The thing is, most Americans I would talk to would scratch their head at the thought of tipping as being "dishonest". If that's the norm, there should be no harm - no foul.

The reason I wouldn't tip the person in that tipping thread in the P.Inn is simply - the culture of tipping in the US does not generally include take out. Similar to the fact where I take off my shoes in an Izakaya (japanese style drinking pub) but I don't take me shoes off in a "family restaurant". It's just somethign you figure out as you acculturate.

Tipping is at worst only 'dishonest' if you compare it to a non-tipping culture you come from, which is an unfair comparison in any event.

"But this is how it works at home" is seldom a worthwhile argument when traveling abroad.

[Gothos]

The thing is: why can't it work like every other gorram profession?

[Shinrei]

Well, let's analyze it.

In the US we regularly tip:

Waiters
Taxi drivers
Pizza/Food delivery
Hotel staff (bellhop,maid)
Barbers/Hair stylists.
Tour and other type "guides"

Optional or tip-jar people:

Coffee shop
bartenders
take-out joints

All are service type jobs, but "cashier" service jobs do not usually get tipped. It's a service thing, obviously, but just ringing someone up on the cash register isn't enough.

[Shinrei]

Now, Macros has said stuff like "waiters just carry the food", which is a simplistic way to look at it. If I had a 20% tip for every time I've heard kitchen staff say "I'm glad I don't have to deal with the asshole customers you deal with", I'd be a few $1000 richer...

Jackass public jerks are the enemy of service jobs everywhere, and not a particularily rare species.

[Tsundoku]

Shinrei, on 09 June 2010 - 11:15 AM, said:

Macros asked me to revive this :pI have spoken with some Aussies and Brits about this subject recently, and what seems to be the trend amongst those who hate American tipping culture ala Macros is they feel there is something "dishonest" about it.I would counter with, if the host culture of consumers (the restaurant goers) do not feel it is dishonest, isn't it a matter of aculturation to a certain practice?

So ... ages ago the delightfully laissez-faire USAnian labour laws fucked hospitality staff in the arse, and to make a decent living meant extra special service. This extra payment by the customer - whether out of respect for the professionalism or just pity - was "tipping".

Because this became a significant factor (carefully note I do not say "majority") in consumer spending, tightarse employers (aided and abetted by their paid-for mouthpieces in DC) somehow got it so they could continue to pay their staff 2/5 of fuck-all, and the difference became made up by the consumer in what is effectively a black economy that draws no tax.
Today we have an expectation that because someone handed you your meal - regardless of situation or standard - you are expected to add directly to their take-home pay. This is what we call a "service levy".

Fuck that. I've worked shitty low-paying jobs and been taxed appropriately. Why should someone else get away with not paying tax on a large part of their income just because of draconian labour laws? Again, fuck that.

Either pay your staff appropriately, or call it what it is, a "service levy" and make it a legislated standard amount or proportion. Because as sure as shit, it's not a "tip".

Oh, and just because something is "traditional", or "cultural" it doesn't make it right. Female circumcision, anyone? Because your logic is the same. I have always believed in the old maxim "when in Rome ...", but on the proviso that said Romans aren't being fuckwits.

And if we just adhere to outdated stupidity just because it's "traditional" or "cultural", then there wouldn't be much in the way of "progress", now would there?

Tradition is instituted and serves a purpose because of some original cause. When that cause is no longer relevant, it is the height of stupidity to continue to follow it in lieu of making the logical improvements. Especially when it does not improve the situation itself, or actually impedes improvement in the situation.

Of course, there are many examples of stupid traditions around the world currently remaining in practice well past their use-by dates, and this is only one of them. It just happens to be the topic at hand though.

It IS however, an interesting example of the Euro-US divide in western civilisation. Here in Oz we have fairly well-paid hospitality staff, and we tip according to the Euro fashion (mostly). Lately I have noticed that TIP line at the bottom of the bill though, and have reacted according to the situation as I have seen fit, depending on the meal and the service. It sort of seems incongruous though to institute it in such a way as to become part of the normal economy when the original purpose was as an off-the-books extra. I guess we're now ingrained to the electronic cashless culture to such an extent that it becomes easier to include it as a one-off transaction, so we don't have to use cash. But when the payment that is supposed to go to the staff is included in the house bill that goes first to the owners and is also taxable income for the establishment ... well, I hope you can see why it leaves me somewhat nonplussed and vaguely amused.

Gothos, on 09 June 2010 - 11:25 AM, said:

The thing is: why can't it work like every other gorram profession?

Because that would mean US Congress or the State Legislature would have to do something that The Money didn't like. And we all know that will never happen.
Also, improvements historically only came when labour used it's power as a bargaining tool, generally collectively. By and large it was forced, and accepted because the bosses couldn't do anything about it as at that point labour had the greater power in that situation. However, hospitality hasn't really been known for its fiery unionism, maybe because of its largely part-time/casual or transitory nature in most peoples career paths.

This post has been edited by Sombra: 09 June 2010 - 12:37 PM

[Shinrei]

That argument, Sombra, as much as I like you, is complete horseshit.

Quote

So ... ages ago the delightfully laissez-faire USAnian labour laws fucked hospitality staff in the arse, and to make a decent living meant extra special service. This extra payment by the customer - whether out of respect for the professionalism or just pity - was "tipping".

Got a source for that by chance?

Tipping EMPOWERS wait staff. No one is getting fucked in the arse by laisezfaire employers. Tipping allows wait staff, if good at their job, to make decent money. If a restaurant owner came at me with a "fair wage/no tips" I'd tell them to go fuck themselves.

Quote

Why should someone else get away with not paying tax on a large part of their income just because of draconian labour laws?

The US government, if they felt they were losing tax revenue, would DEFINATELY do something about it. Trust me on this one.

And female circumcision comparisons? That's one of the dumbest fucking hyperboles I've ever read.

NO ONE IS HARMED BY TIPPING CULTURE. NO ONE. Except maybe the people who whine that "it's not on the menu" and are fucking mathematically impaired.

1) Consumers pay less for food/drink, and decide what to leave as tip.
2) Wait staff can and do make more than minimum wage employees.
3) Employer's can keep prices reasonable and potentially employ more people.
4) The government gets their appropriate taxes.

Truth is, the "fuckwits" that are the American public are not bothered by tipping. Why? Because it's not a big deal, unless you're a cheap git. It's only the whingers from abroad who decide that "female circumcision" is an apt comparison.

[Shinrei]

Quote

the difference became made up by the consumer in what is effectively a black economy that draws no tax.

And where did you get this by the by? Tax on waiters is on the assumption that they are getting tipped - not just on their wages.

[Grief]

Shinrei, on 09 June 2010 - 01:24 PM, said:

Quote

the difference became made up by the consumer in what is effectively a black economy that draws no tax.

And where did you get this by the by? Tax on waiters is on the assumption that they are getting tipped - not just on their wages.

Isn't this what he refers to when he's talking about needing extra-special service? Wait staff are being taxed on the assumption they are getting tipped. Thus, they are getting over-taxed unless they are getting tipped, so they need to provide a tip-worthy service.

I disagree with your statement that tipping culture harms no one. Like you say, it allows wait staff to get decent pay, if good at the job. But if they aren't deemed good enough to earn a tip by the customer, then they are being over taxed.

Now, what I dislike about that, is simple. I think it should be the employers decision, rather than the customers, whether they are doing a good job. In other places, it isn't up to the customer to decide. They can complain, but in the end of the day, it's the employers decision whether or not to emply someone. That way, the people who are deemed by the employer to be doing a good job, get consistently decent pay, rather than relying on the customers thinking they are doing a good job. After all, you could do a good job and still not get tipped.


1) Consumers pay less for food/drink, and decide what to leave as tip.
2) Wait staff can and do make more than minimum wage employees.
3) Employer's can keep prices reasonable and potentially employ more people.
4) The government gets their appropriate taxes.

1. Not a benefit, because either:
a)Consumers pay a tip that makes the meal as expensive as it would be anyway, if they had a higher wage rather than tips to make the same amount of money.
b)Consumers pay a tip that makes the meal more expensive than it would be anyway, if the wage was higher rather than paying with tips.
c)Consumers pay a tip that makes the meal cheaper than it would be anyway, and waiters get less than they would with higher wages.
2. They can also be overtaxed, if they get a customer unwilling to tip(for whatever reason-bad service, or just a customer who doesn't tip).
3. Like 1, this is irrelevant imo. If the wage reflected how much waiters are valued, but was payed by the employer rather than the customer, you would still pay the same amount. You pay for the meal, and tip the waiter. The food is cheap, but you are paying a tip aswell. If instead, there were higher wages, all this would mean is that companys would charge more for the food, and you wouldn't tip. The employer would get more money, but would also spend more on paying his staff. It all evens out. You are still paying the same for the food. The employer still gets the same. The waiter still gets the same.
4. Yes, but tipping is a potentially more damaging system, to people who get customers not willing to tip, and for those who aren't good waiters.

A higher wage, should just cancel out tipping, if they make it the right amount.
The advantage of tipping is that it benefits those who get tipped enough that the tax is less than it would be on pay that assumed no tipping but gave a higher wage.
The disadvantage of tipping is that it hurts those who don't get tipped enough, and are overtaxed. It also leaves the potential for individuals to be hurt by people not tipping.

Are their other jobs like this? Or just waiting staff? It seems odd to me, because essentially the difference is in who decides if you're doing a good job-the consumer or the employer.

If waiters are paid to a degree by the people they serve, why not others?

Why not reduce teachers wages, and have the students decide if they are teaching well enough to deserve pay that matches their tax?

To the thread in general: Keep the discussion civil.

[Shinrei]

Grief, on 09 June 2010 - 03:31 PM, said:

Shinrei, on 09 June 2010 - 01:24 PM, said:

Quote

the difference became made up by the consumer in what is effectively a black economy that draws no tax.

And where did you get this by the by? Tax on waiters is on the assumption that they are getting tipped - not just on their wages.

Isn't this what he refers to when he's talking about needing extra-special service? Wait staff are being taxed on the assumption they are getting tipped. Thus, they are getting over-taxed unless they are getting tipped, so they need to provide a tip-worthy service.

What's wrong with needing to provide tip-worthy service? That means the service has to be good. The employee does a better job, and the customer should get better service.

I disagree with your statement that tipping culture harms no one. Like you say, it allows wait staff to get decent pay, if good at the job. But if they aren't deemed good enough to earn a tip by the customer, then they are being over taxed.

In a country where tipping is considered normal, this is unlikely to happen unless the waiter is crap, in which case it's their own fault and they should get a different job.

Now, what I dislike about that, is simple. I think it should be the employers decision, rather than the customers, whether they are doing a good job. In other places, it isn't up to the customer to decide. They can complain, but in the end of the day, it's the employers decision whether or not to emply someone. That way, the people who are deemed by the employer to be doing a good job, get consistently decent pay, rather than relying on the customers thinking they are doing a good job. After all, you could do a good job and still not get tipped.

Isn't it the employer who has all the power anyways? What's wrong with giving the customer and staff some modicum of control?

1) Consumers pay less for food/drink, and decide what to leave as tip.
2) Wait staff can and do make more than minimum wage employees.
3) Employer's can keep prices reasonable and potentially employ more people.
4) The government gets their appropriate taxes.

1. Not a benefit, because either:
a)Consumers pay a tip that makes the meal as expensive as it would be anyway, if they had a higher wage rather than tips to make the same amount of money.
But in tip culture, it's the consumer's choice as to how much.
b)Consumers pay a tip that makes the meal more expensive than it would be anyway, if the wage was higher rather than paying with tips.
If the consumer is doing this, it's their choice and benefits the waiter. If the consumer decides to leave a big tip, it's because they want to so they are not "losing" something.
c)Consumers pay a tip that makes the meal cheaper than it would be anyway, and waiters get less than they would with higher wages.
It happens, but if a few tables do this it is still unlikely to hurt the final money the waiter makes.
2. They can also be overtaxed, if they get a customer unwilling to tip(for whatever reason-bad service, or just a customer who doesn't tip).
Again, in tip culture this is unlikely to happen.
3. Like 1, this is irrelevant imo. If the wage reflected how much waiters are valued, but was payed by the employer rather than the customer, you would still pay the same amount. You pay for the meal, and tip the waiter. The food is cheap, but you are paying a tip aswell. If instead, there were higher wages, all this would mean is that companys would charge more for the food, and you wouldn't tip. The employer would get more money, but would also spend more on paying his staff. It all evens out. You are still paying the same for the food. The employer still gets the same. The waiter still gets the same.
No no and no again. This is what people aren't reading. Waiters would NOT get the same. Employers might get the same as price-to-wages evens out, but the poor waiter gets to make $8 an hour instead of something better. I this scenario, waiters definately get the short end of the stick. while nothing really changes for either consumer or employer.
4. Yes, but tipping is a potentially more damaging system, to people who get customers not willing to tip, and for those who aren't good waiters.

As a waiter, I'd get a non-tipping or low-tipping table 3-4 times a week. Not enough to hurt me. And if you're not a good waiter, you're getting what you deserve. Which is why the consumer loses out - they have no way to reflect their experience with how much they tip. If the waiter is a rude asshole, they've gotta pay his wage anyways.

A higher wage, should just cancel out tipping, if they make it the right amount.
The advantage of tipping is that it benefits those who get tipped enough that the tax is less than it would be on pay that assumed no tipping but gave a higher wage.
The disadvantage of tipping is that it hurts those who don't get tipped enough, and are overtaxed. It also leaves the potential for individuals to be hurt by people not tipping.

Are their other jobs like this? Or just waiting staff? It seems odd to me, because essentially the difference is in who decides if you're doing a good job-the consumer or the employer.

If waiters are paid to a degree by the people they serve, why not others?

Why not reduce teachers wages, and have the students decide if they are teaching well enough to deserve pay that matches their tax?

Teaching and waiting tables are apples and oranges.

To the thread in general: Keep the discussion civil.

[Macros]

I forget where I asked shinrea to piss me off.

I enjoy beating a dead horse as much as the next man, (not a euphemism)but we're practically down to the bones on this corpse.

Whats been said already has covered my complete opinion on the subject.

I don't have a problem with tipping where service warrants it. And when I'm in the states I will tip if I get good service.
What I have a problem with is your tipping CULTURE. I want to wlak in, sit down and have a rpice in front of me, if the service is exceptional, I'll give the waiter/waitress a little something EXTRA. Extra as in a bonus on top of their wages. Not feel obligated to pay their fucking wages, becasue their kids home alone and its hungry, and the only way to feed him is to sl'eep with a man for a little bit of money and hi......oh wait, thats a song. If the service was woeful Ill complain and not pay the full whack, because when I see the price on the menu, thats the price for cooking the food and serving me. #Thats why places that do sit in and take out have 2 prices (mcdonalds excepted obiously) and take out is cheaper. Hell, if they're bad enough they'll get the road, bad service hurts custom, its simple enough economics to see that keeping him/her on is a bad idea.

Now I'm for bed, I really dont have time to waste trying to locate my acme style mallet to hammer my point of view home

ETA - just read one of the red points. a minimum wage would be far more appealing to me. I know the minimum I'm coming home with, and get this, If I'm a good waiter, ill get tips which will be money on top of what I'm LEGALLY GUARANTEED to earn.

This post has been edited by Macros: 09 June 2010 - 10:19 PM

[Grief]

Grief, on 09 June 2010 - 03:31 PM, said:

Shinrei, on 09 June 2010 - 01:24 PM, said:

Quote

the difference became made up by the consumer in what is effectively a black economy that draws no tax.

And where did you get this by the by? Tax on waiters is on the assumption that they are getting tipped - not just on their wages.

Isn't this what he refers to when he's talking about needing extra-special service? Wait staff are being taxed on the assumption they are getting tipped. Thus, they are getting over-taxed unless they are getting tipped, so they need to provide a tip-worthy service.

What's wrong with needing to provide tip-worthy service? That means the service has to be good. The employee does a better job, and the customer should get better service.

Not really. Because when tipping is the norm, it isn't for an excellent service, it's for a normal service. Excellent service would likely get a bigger tip, but low wage and bigger tip for excellent service is no different from normal wage and regular tip for excellent service

I disagree with your statement that tipping culture harms no one. Like you say, it allows wait staff to get decent pay, if good at the job. But if they aren't deemed good enough to earn a tip by the customer, then they are being over taxed.

In a country where tipping is considered normal, this is unlikely to happen unless the waiter is crap, in which case it's their own fault and they should get a different job.

This is what I don't like about the tipping culture. Because it isn't necessarily someones own fault.

Now, what I dislike about that, is simple. I think it should be the employers decision, rather than the customers, whether they are doing a good job. In other places, it isn't up to the customer to decide. They can complain, but in the end of the day, it's the employers decision whether or not to emply someone. That way, the people who are deemed by the employer to be doing a good job, get consistently decent pay, rather than relying on the customers thinking they are doing a good job. After all, you could do a good job and still not get tipped.

Isn't it the employer who has all the power anyways? What's wrong with giving the customer and staff some modicum of control?

For a country in which against national healthcare, it's quite ironic that something as socialist as this, which is basically "Power to the people" is so widespread.

On topic though. It comes down to peoples opinion on the staff, which is something subjective. Employers should be hiring people who do a good job. If pepole think you are a terrible waiter, they can complain to the management, but I don't think they should control their wage.

1) Consumers pay less for food/drink, and decide what to leave as tip.
2) Wait staff can and do make more than minimum wage employees.
3) Employer's can keep prices reasonable and potentially employ more people.
4) The government gets their appropriate taxes.

1. Not a benefit, because either:
a)Consumers pay a tip that makes the meal as expensive as it would be anyway, if they had a higher wage rather than tips to make the same amount of money.
But in tip culture, it's the consumer's choice as to how much.
Which is based on a subjective opinion.
b)Consumers pay a tip that makes the meal more expensive than it would be anyway, if the wage was higher rather than paying with tips.
If the consumer is doing this, it's their choice and benefits the waiter. If the consumer decides to leave a big tip, it's because they want to so they are not "losing" something.
Yes, my point was that it doesn't actually make the food cheaper, unless you are tipping less than the waiter would be earning normally.
c)Consumers pay a tip that makes the meal cheaper than it would be anyway, and waiters get less than they would with higher wages.
It happens, but if a few tables do this it is still unlikely to hurt the final money the waiter makes.
It probably balances with the amount of good tips-except that if you're not an outstanding waiter, you'll probably just get a standard tip.
2. They can also be overtaxed, if they get a customer unwilling to tip(for whatever reason-bad service, or just a customer who doesn't tip).
Again, in tip culture this is unlikely to happen.
Except if you're not very good at the job. Which may not be entirely your own fault.
3. Like 1, this is irrelevant imo. If the wage reflected how much waiters are valued, but was payed by the employer rather than the customer, you would still pay the same amount. You pay for the meal, and tip the waiter. The food is cheap, but you are paying a tip aswell. If instead, there were higher wages, all this would mean is that companys would charge more for the food, and you wouldn't tip. The employer would get more money, but would also spend more on paying his staff. It all evens out. You are still paying the same for the food. The employer still gets the same. The waiter still gets the same.
No no and no again. This is what people aren't reading. Waiters would NOT get the same. Employers might get the same as price-to-wages evens out, but the poor waiter gets to make $8 an hour instead of something better. I this scenario, waiters definately get the short end of the stick. while nothing really changes for either consumer or employer.
Then where is the money going. Tax remains the same, employers get the same, consumers are paid the same.
4. Yes, but tipping is a potentially more damaging system, to people who get customers not willing to tip, and for those who aren't good waiters.

As a waiter, I'd get a non-tipping or low-tipping table 3-4 times a week. Not enough to hurt me. And if you're not a good waiter, you're getting what you deserve. Which is why the consumer loses out - they have no way to reflect their experience with how much they tip. If the waiter is a rude asshole, they've gotta pay his wage anyways.
You can still show their appreciation of good service. If someone is a rude asshole, you talk to the manager. And in my mind, that is a much better solution anyway. You don't tip, ok, they lose money. You talk to the manager, the person responsible for hiring them, they can lose their job, particularly if it's a consistent complaint, and this improves the long-term quality of the place.

A higher wage, should just cancel out tipping, if they make it the right amount.
The advantage of tipping is that it benefits those who get tipped enough that the tax is less than it would be on pay that assumed no tipping but gave a higher wage.
The disadvantage of tipping is that it hurts those who don't get tipped enough, and are overtaxed. It also leaves the potential for individuals to be hurt by people not tipping.

Are their other jobs like this? Or just waiting staff? It seems odd to me, because essentially the difference is in who decides if you're doing a good job-the consumer or the employer.

If waiters are paid to a degree by the people they serve, why not others?

Why not reduce teachers wages, and have the students decide if they are teaching well enough to deserve pay that matches their tax?

Teaching and waiting tables are apples and oranges.

"What's wrong with giving the customer and staff some modicum of control?" I fail to see how this doens't apply to any other job but waiting tables. What is so particular to waiting tables that means the consumer ought to have more control over it, as opposed to any other job? If you're going to tip waiters, I see no reason not to extend this to chefs depending on how much you enjoyed the meal.


To the thread in general: Keep the discussion civil.

Reminds me of mafia...

[Grief]

Also, the legal guarantee is good. Because people hit hard times(such as the current economic crisis) and that has a knock on effect. People probably go to restraunts less often. I suspect that peoples tips would go down. Oh maybe not by much, but it could easily add up.

A legal minimum wage is security. Yes, you might not always earn quite as much as you might with tips. But conversely, when things go bad, they don't go as bad either.

[Shinrei]

Macros, so if the restaurant had menu written like this:

Steak $20
Service Charge (to be paid directly to waiter) $3

You'd be happier?

And I worked 3 restaurants, and the WORST one I worked at, I made about $12-15 an hour, back when the minimum wage was still about $5.75. I know which one I'd choose, and I think it's wacky you'd choose the $5.75...

This post has been edited by Shinrei: 09 June 2010 - 11:03 PM

[Menandore]

Shinrei, you seem to be arguing from the assumption that in countries where waiters get paid full minimum wage as their basic salary then they don't get tipped at all. I don't know where you've got that idea from but it's nonsense. You can't argue that the tipping culture of the US encourages better service because in Europe waiters still get tipped, it just isn't expected if service isn't good. They still have to work a bit harder if they want to earn more money. Back home I'd tip 10% for good service, less for ok service and nothing if it was bad. If the waiter really went out of his way then it would be more. I know 10% would be considered stingy by american standards but you also have to take account of the fact that when the prices are higher, 10% of a british bill is going to be more than 10% of a US bill.

This whole thing seems to come down to a disagreement on what a tip actually is. To you it seems like a tip is something the waiter should get just for doing his job. To us, the waiter should be paid by the employer for doing his job and he will be tipped if he does it well. What is it that makes you think you would get paid less overall if your employer paid minimum wage? If you're good at your job why will you not get tipped on top of minimum wage and still earn above it?

[Shinrei]

Meh. I think I'll end with "its a social custom that not everyone likes or agrees with". Which is true for me with OTHER social customs, so I can understand the dislike.

What I couldn't understand was the actual "loathing" some people seem to have for it. It is NOT on par with female circumcision for example

And Macros' argument of "it's not my responsibility to pay for the waitress' poor kids at home" when, in fact, as a customer he IS paying for that kid at home whether it's through included service charge or because of tip. That one boggles my mind every time.

It's like the people who think socialized health care or welfare is "Free".

[Shinrei]

Hmm, maybe that's why I like tipping. The more control I have over my money, the better. The employer including the service charge is like the government taking more in taxes for "service".

[Tapper]

Shinrei, on 10 June 2010 - 10:56 AM, said:

Hmm, maybe that's why I like tipping. The more control I have over my money, the better. The employer including the service charge is like the government taking more in taxes for "service".

But, do you really have more control?
In fact, you hardly do, because you more or less know the percentage you're supposed to tip for OK service (I think Venge mentioned 20% somewhere), and you add or deduct a bit based on the performance you get.
The only added 'control' you as a customer have is that you can deduct from the expected price (price + regular tip) rather than having the expected price (price + higher minimum wage) as an absolute lowest as it is in Europe (unless you file a complaint with the manager).

In return, the waiter is more reliant on the restaurant having a shift or a number of tables that can supplement the basic income to a reasonable level. Sick for a week? In Europe, you get all the pay as regular (if your contract is like that), but does the same go in tipping culture?
I for one prefer my waiter to sit at home with a heavy cold rather than breathing her bacteria all over my food because she needs the tips to supplement her income to buy her groceries.

This post has been edited by Tapper: 10 June 2010 - 11:23 AM

[Macros]

Why would they do that on the bill?
Why not just say, steak $23

whats the fucking point?

also, lets consider this, the chef is having an off day, regardless of service, If I order my steak medium well and get it rare, I'm going to complain, and leave no tip. Is this the waiters fault? Not in the slightest, its the chef, yet the waiter gets shafted with no tip for the chef's shitty day. Over here the waiter gets his wage regardless, just loses out on the tip.

[HoosierDaddy]

Why punish the waiter for the cook's fuckup? He's getting paid a minimum wage no matter what in both countries right? Over here, you'd send it back and gauge your tip on how the server behaved during the situation.

You do seem to take a very personal affront to this, and it's kind of mind-boggling, Mac. If I go over to England, I'll know not to tip at pubs, and to only tip for exceptional service at restaurants thanks to this thread.