Our inner thread has reached it's max depth, so I'm replying here. We'll probably have to end this conversion because of that, so here's my final response:
> But the customers are not obligated to tip
> If you are a regular and stiff the server, 99% of the time you just get average service and a server complaining behind your back.
> There's no way this is a negative.
So you're telling me if I'm a regular at a spot and I want to strictly pay the required amount for (food+environment+service) and nothing more, then I should accept "average service" and being complained about in the kitchen? That's exactly how you lose regular customers.
> If you have a really high care factor on a particular day you'll try to be nicer and work a little harder than you might otherwise.
Employees should be just as nice and work just as hard as the employer asks them, because that's their job. The people with the money (employers and customers) make the rules, not the worker.
> If you are a regular, and recognized as such, and known to be a good tipper, you will most likely get better service.
This is exactly the behavior we're trying to stop. Service should always be good.
> Nobody, as a rule, messes with your food. If you're eating at the kind of place where people would screw with your order because of your tipping, they're going to screw with it for other arbitrary reasons too.
I know several people who've either been first-hand responsible or been whiteness to others performing gross things to people's food. This is edge-case for sure, but still a reality.
> your main reason is you don't like doing it for some personal reason, but you're afraid of the social consequences if you don't.
My main reasons are:
A) tips are taxed and aren't the "gift" people think they are. This is how the government allows employers to reduce a workers minimum wage down to like, $2.xx or something, and you won't find any worker who is happy about that, only employers and government.
B) it creates a favorites-game between employees and customers, not something I'm interested in as a customer. The only people who like that system are people who get the benefits from it. Those who get screwed, get screwed.
C) This standard doesn't span the entire service industry, and wait staff have no special place in my heart that the rest of the industry doesn't also have.
Also, why do you say "stiff" when referring to someone paying the full and complete amount of their meal and service? To 'stiff' literally means to cheat or steal. As you say, the customer is not obliged in any way to pay more. Using this term is bully tactics, telling people that not paying extra makes them bad in some way.
---
I've realized that the problem here simply lies in which perspective we value more. Do we accept that the customer should help pay the wage of the worker with a taxed donation, or do we accept that the customer should have an easy flat price absent from favoritism?
Our inner thread has reached it's max depth, so I'm replying here. We'll probably have to end this conversion because of that, so here's my final response:
> But the customers are not obligated to tip
> If you are a regular and stiff the server, 99% of the time you just get average service and a server complaining behind your back.
> There's no way this is a negative.
So you're telling me if I'm a regular at a spot and I want to strictly pay the required amount for (food+environment+service) and nothing more, then I should accept "average service" and being complained about in the kitchen? That's exactly how you lose regular customers.
> If you have a really high care factor on a particular day you'll try to be nicer and work a little harder than you might otherwise.
Employees should be just as nice and work just as hard as the employer asks them, because that's their job. The people with the money (employers and customers) make the rules, not the worker.
> If you are a regular, and recognized as such, and known to be a good tipper, you will most likely get better service.
This is exactly the behavior we're trying to stop. Service should always be good.
> Nobody, as a rule, messes with your food. If you're eating at the kind of place where people would screw with your order because of your tipping, they're going to screw with it for other arbitrary reasons too.
I know several people who've either been first-hand responsible or been whiteness to others performing gross things to people's food. This is edge-case for sure, but still a reality.
> your main reason is you don't like doing it for some personal reason, but you're afraid of the social consequences if you don't.
My main reasons are:
A) tips are taxed and aren't the "gift" people think they are. This is how the government allows employers to reduce a workers minimum wage down to like, $2.xx or something, and you won't find any worker who is happy about that, only employers and government.
B) it creates a favorites-game between employees and customers, not something I'm interested in as a customer. The only people who like that system are people who get the benefits from it. Those who get screwed, get screwed.
C) This standard doesn't span the entire service industry, and wait staff have no special place in my heart that the rest of the industry doesn't also have.
Also, why do you say "stiff" when referring to someone paying the full and complete amount of their meal and service? To 'stiff' literally means to cheat or steal. As you say, the customer is not obliged in any way to pay more. Using this term is bully tactics, telling people that not paying extra makes them bad in some way.
---
I've realized that the problem here simply lies in which perspective we value more. Do we accept that the customer should help pay the wage of the worker with a taxed donation, or do we accept that the customer should have an easy flat price absent from favoritism?