Legal Question

[T_Bone]

I swear this is funny. Everyone who's always complaining that Business screws the worker is now complaining that Business stood up for the worker. :-P

Oh, wait a minute, those complaining about the tips are Canadian, never mind :lol: j/k

[T_Bone]

that_punk_guy wrote:
The business should be paying the employees enough to ensure that they don't need the tips.

Why would they want to do that? They'd have to increase prices  *acrossed the board* by almost 20%, and on top of that, it moves profit from the worker to the business. You'd ruin these peoples jobs, turning them into simple labor jobs that nobody wants.

As it is, the waitstaff generally make more than the restuarant itself does. Why screw that up?

That way the tips actually are a reward for good service. The restaurant (or whatever) owners shouldn't interfere with tipping at all.

The tips are a reward for good service, *SERVICE* mind you, these customers didn't have a problem with the service, they had a problem with the food. yet they paid for the food, and took it out on the worker who performed the service.

The restaurant normally doesn't interfere with tips. It's the IRS who's stepped in with funny rules about tips, and minimum tips for large orders, because they got it in their head more tips would be reported on taxes if large orders had minimum gratuities.

I don't have any sympathy for these people. They monopolosed this poor workers time, had no problem whatsoever with the service, had no problem whatsoever with paying for the food they didn't like, but decided they'd make sure the worker didn't benefit from his labor. Screw them. If you don't like the food, complain to the manager and ask for a refund, don't take it out on the people waiting on you and make them work for free.

And if these people just don't like paying waitstaff, there's plenty of counter & carry/caffeteria type restaurants available where you don't walk in knowing there's going to be a guy expecting to be paid for serving you so he can feed his family.

[T_Bone]

that_punk_guy wrote:

T_Bone wrote:

that_punk_guy wrote:
The business should be paying the employees enough to ensure that they don't need the tips.

Why would they want to do that? They'd have to increase prices  *acrossed the board* by almost 20%, and on top of that, it moves profit from the worker to the business. You'd ruin these peoples jobs, turning them into simple labor jobs that nobody wants.

As it is, the waitstaff generally make more than the restuarant itself does. Why screw that up?

C'mon, who actually wants to be a waiter? You mean to ask why they would want to pay their workers a living wage?

My daughters first job was at Mcdonalds. They get paid for their work. Her second job was as a waitress at The Olive Garden. She put herself through medical school on tips alone.

We compared notes one day. She asked me what the most I've ever made in a day was. I estimated, and she smiled and told me her best day's tips. She had me beat, at age 20, in a 5 hour shift.

Who want's to be a waiter? Me, in my next life. :lol: If you  make the tips a fixed part of the price of the bill, you turn this wonderfull oportunity that young people have into yet another McJob.

The price issue is irrelevent (although God forbid anyone should expect the restaurant to profit after paying all its staff properly!) because I accept that my suggestions are not immediately practicable and would require industry-wide change to preserve fair competition. But it would guarantee a decent wage regardless of business and preserve real gratuities.

That way the tips actually are a reward for good service. The restaurant (or whatever) owners shouldn't interfere with tipping at all.

The tips are a reward for good service, *SERVICE* mind you, these customers didn't have a problem with the service, they had a problem with the food. yet they paid for the food, and took it out on the worker who performed the service.

The restaurant normally doesn't interfere with tips. It's the IRS who's stepped in with funny rules about tips, and minimum tips for large orders, because they got it in their head more tips would be reported on taxes if large orders had minimum gratuities.

I found a lot of stuff on tip reporting but nothing on minimum tips. Again... If the tips were actually tips and not relied on as a wage, there'd be less justification for the IRS to get involved anyway.

There'd be more justification for the IRS to get involved. Tips ARE taxable. If you got rid of the minimum tip reporting laws, they'd be auditing waiters and waitresses all the time, even moreso than now.

The minimum tip reporting varies by region, sometimes even by restaurant. If you report tips as less than 8% of the GC totals (Guest checks), you WILL be audited. For this reason, every restaurant that want's to avoid the hassle will require you to (at a MINIMUM) report tips at 8% of the GC totals. The IRS figures if you report less, you're lying.

Restaurants deal with tax audits all the time, waitstaff are constantly harassed by the IRS, so many restaurants enforce  a minimum tip on any GC's that would likely flag audits, say any GC>$500 or so. When these large GC's don't leave a tip, the waitstaff not only don't make any money... they are paying TAX on money they never even recieved!

[T_Bone]

that_punk_guy wrote:

Nah, I wouldn't go so far. McDonald's flat out forbids tipping.

The reason being that they don't want the hassle with tip reporting and the IRS.

Ah, gotcha. To me it seems weird to tax something so personal but I guess we have different conceptions of what a tip is supposed to stand for.

Not really, our conceptions of what a tip is for are probably the same, but our IRS is the biggest, meanest, most evil collection agency on earth. I'm surprised they don't have their own branch of the pentagon yet.

You know what's really disgusting? The high percentage of the billions collected that goes just to the agency that collects it and counts it. (I'd quote it here but I forgot :lol:)