HOME > Chowhound > Not About Food >
What are you cooking today? Get great advice

Restaurants that don't require tipping

babaoriley7 Feb 20, 2008 11:27 AM

Are there any restaurants out there that don't require tipping? I think it would be refreshing to see a place that pays it wait staff a living wage rather than having them rely on tips. It works in other places around the world, I think it could work state-side as well.

  1. jgg13 Feb 20, 2008 12:45 PM

    The problem w/ this is that obviously their prices are going to be higher. At the end of the day it might work out the same for the customer (or even cheaper!), but people are stupid. Most folks will look at the menu, see the higher prices, neglect to do the mental math ("well gee, I really should be deducting 15-20% from this price") and declare the place to be overpriced.

    Personally, I'd love to see this model be adopted in our society though. I *hate* all of the nonsense that tipping creates - arguments about appropriate amounts, entitled waitstaff, etc. Pay the waitstaff more (how much would depend on the place, but would obviously no longer be able to be sub-minimum wage), do away with tips. Make it like pretty much every other job out there.

    1 Reply
    1. re: jgg13
      babaoriley7 Feb 20, 2008 01:25 PM

      I see that perspective and there might be some merit to it, BUT my response would be that restaurant food is already an extremely wide range of prices. I think a place like Applebee's or the like would have a hard time but your neighborhood cuisine type place wouldn't have any problem altering their prices for this approach. I think the best chance for this to succeed would be places that put a premium on the quality of their food, the type of place you shouldn't go to wearing blue jeans.

    2. j
      jes Feb 20, 2008 12:57 PM

      There's one restaurant in my neighborhood (Baltimore) that not only doesn't require tipping, but doesn't allow it. It is an upscale pizza place. Neopolitan type crust and some pastas. It's not fancy by any means. Its prices are slightly higher but not overly so and they tend to be always crowded. They are also BYOB which is a plus. It's nice to know when you sit down that the price on the menu is what your meal will cost.

      2 Replies
      1. re: jes
        JonParker Feb 20, 2008 01:54 PM

        But I'll also point out that they have no table service, so that doesn't really apply. We are talking Iggie's, right?

        1. re: JonParker
          jes Feb 20, 2008 02:06 PM

          yes Iggies. Even though you order at the counter they still bring you your food and bus your table. At other such establishments tre would be lengthy debate on whether or not to tip.

      2. f
        fourunder Feb 20, 2008 01:47 PM

        I can only surmise and say 99% of all restaurant dining is for tables less than 8 seats and therefore not subject to any service charges imposed by the house. With that said, it would be quite RARE for ANY restaurant to require tipping for their servers in any restaurant. The appreciation for service is "Requested and Appreciated", not required nor mandatory.

        There are some who choose never to tip any time or any where they dine out and ................ I will leave to the imagination of others to describe those guests by name.

        3 Replies
        1. re: fourunder
          babaoriley7 Feb 20, 2008 06:17 PM

          Yeah it is "requested and appreciated" but I imagine there is a reason you put it in quotes.... because it really isn't a choice. For the most part probably in the high 80% - 90% of people assume it is necessary.

          1. re: babaoriley7
            fourunder Feb 20, 2008 07:05 PM


            ,,,assume it is necessary,

            Of course it necessary. It called earnings and income to live and support your family. The act of a gratuity is still a choice.........and the choice has consequences real or perceived.

            1. re: babaoriley7
              ccbweb Feb 20, 2008 08:52 PM

              I find it's necessary because in most places a server's wages are allowed to be incredibly low on an hourly basis with the understanding that the bulk of their actual earnings will be in the form of tips. If we (societally speaking, at least in terms of localities) were to establish a minimum wage (living wage) that didn't depend on tip income, then I would agree its entirely optional.

          2. Unplugged Feb 20, 2008 03:53 PM

            Okay, let's work this out. I've been bartending and serving for close to six years and believe me, I've worked with every slow and entitled waiter you can imagine. I would hate to receive a regular wage, it would remove any incentive for good service. I guess I'm old fashioned.

            13 Replies
            1. re: Unplugged
              Suzy Q Feb 20, 2008 04:39 PM

              Unplugged, I had the same thought. I would also think that if you're a good server and have landed a spot in a nicer establishment, you can bring home more money in tips than you would at a flat wage rate.

              1. re: Unplugged
                cimui Feb 20, 2008 05:00 PM

                The way things work now, waiters sometimes end up going by apparent wealth (i.e. race, what you order) to determine how good of service they provide--which I think is a shoddy basis for judging a person.

                I wonder if a no tipping policy wouldn't put the burden of being nice on the customer. Waiters might give better service to nicer tables and encourage civility, rather than to diners who appear to be rich.

                1. re: cimui
                  dolores Feb 21, 2008 01:56 AM

                  >>The way things work now, waiters sometimes end up going by apparent wealth (i.e. race, what you order) to determine how good of service they provide--which I think is a shoddy basis for judging a person.

                  I think I'd leave it to the server.

                  Me: server, do you make a very good living by working for this restaurant which doesn't want patrons to pay tips?
                  Server: No.
                  Me: okey doke, then, I'll tip you 20%+.

                2. re: Unplugged
                  babaoriley7 Feb 20, 2008 06:18 PM

                  What about getting vacation time? or what about fear of getting fired? or what about job satisfaction tied to performing your duties well.

                  1. re: Unplugged
                    hilltowner Feb 20, 2008 07:20 PM

                    Oh, I have been saying this for years. If people actually tipped appropriately, based on the service they received, we could far more effectively weed out the bad servers. I've been serving and bartending since 1994 and I am astounded by how much people tip clearly bad servers. They're still getting 20% pretty much across the board. If people were tipping them 10-15%, it might let them know that they need to step up to the plate or get out of the business.

                    Also, Suzy Q, you don't really need to work at a nicer establishment. You just need to find someplace midrange and busy. Longevity works well too. The longer you have worked someplace, the more of a relationship you are able to build up with customers.

                    1. re: hilltowner
                      Suzy Q Feb 21, 2008 03:32 AM

                      Good point, HT!

                      1. re: hilltowner
                        boltnut55 Mar 8, 2008 09:59 PM

                        I really like the server at a local diner and always try to tip her at least 20% (that's a big deal for me!). She acknowledges me, remembers my order, and is very efficient. I think she's also a student (goes back to read her textbook when not busy). Today, I found out my husband went to Taco Bell, was very impressed by this elderly man who worked there, and tipped him $10! That's at least a 100% tip (he went with my daughter). :-)

                      2. re: Unplugged
                        jgg13 Feb 21, 2008 07:29 AM

                        On the surface, that makes sense. But practically speaking it doesn't work. 99.9% of the time, if a bad tip is left due to poor service, the server assumes the customer is just being cheap, gets irritated and continues to be a dope.

                        1. re: jgg13
                          hilltowner Feb 21, 2008 12:16 PM

                          Yeah, but if they consistently get bad tips, they might rethink their position. If the money's not good, something will change. They will either learn how to be better or find a more lucrative business. Also, just to drive the point home, you could leave a brief, polite note, explaining your dissatisfaction. Unfortunately, this concept will probably never work unless a large portion of the dining public adhered to it.

                          1. re: hilltowner
                            jgg13 Feb 21, 2008 12:43 PM

                            I doubt that even poor servers would get consistently bad tips though. It seems like most people these days seem to believe that one is supposed to leave 15-20% as a starting point and only deduct it for extremely gross errors. Once you're in that situation, the server will just notice fluctuation within the 'norm' and not really think about it.

                            at the end of the day, a note, a chitchat w/ the manager, etc would be the best bet - but honestly, i'd just vote with my feet and not go back. Leave it up to the management , if they start to lose customers they might realize that poor service is the root.

                            1. re: jgg13
                              hilltowner Feb 21, 2008 02:14 PM

                              Right. That was my point made earlier

                          2. re: jgg13
                            NVJims Mar 16, 2008 02:05 PM

                            When I get the 'service from hell', I leave a 2 cent tip and a note--there should be no question that it was poor service and not just an oversight or cheapskate...

                            1. re: NVJims
                              KTinNYC Mar 16, 2008 02:29 PM

                              Unless you speak to management then there is nothing to keep the server from believing you are just cheap.

                        2. t
                          tudor3522 Feb 20, 2008 05:26 PM

                          The only restaurants I've seen that don't require tipping are very high-end. That's because the service staff is salaried. Almost by definition, these are top flight servers, there are no slackers allowed. Ownership is enlightened and the Kitchen is top notch. Their staff is made up exclusively of "A" players, the "C" players never get an interview, (they go work in a Chain restaurant), and the "B" players are gone in 2 weeks.

                          The restaurant industry is like a pyramid. The very good ones are at the top, and there's VERY few of them.

                          20 Replies
                          1. re: tudor3522
                            BlueHerons Feb 20, 2008 05:36 PM

                            I agree somewhat. One of my husband's old very upscale restaurants he had career waiters that made six figures easily and a couple had been with him for 20 years.

                            If you don't have to tip in the restaurant, you don't attract good service. No restauranteur in their right mind is going to pay a server a salary without horrifically jacking up menu prices.

                            The net margins on restaurant profits are very small as it is. That is why the restaurant industry has such a high mortality rate.

                            1. re: BlueHerons
                              babaoriley7 Feb 20, 2008 06:19 PM

                              then how does it work so well in Europe?

                              1. re: babaoriley7
                                ccbweb Feb 20, 2008 08:53 PM

                                Wages aren't tied to the discretion of the diners; the wage minimums are legislated at a level that people can have the jobs and survive.

                              2. re: BlueHerons
                                alanbarnes Feb 21, 2008 08:31 AM

                                "If you don't have to tip in the restaurant, you don't attract good service. No restauranteur in their right mind is going to pay a server a salary without horrifically jacking up menu prices."

                                Then I suppose Alice Waters and Thomas Keller must have lost their marbles. They pay their entire staff a living wage (and provide benefits), and their prices are comparable to restaurants of a similar caliber. It is my understanding that they do so by adding a service charge that goes to the restaurant, not directly to the servers, and commensurately increasing the amount the staff is paid.

                                1. re: alanbarnes
                                  kimmer1850 Feb 21, 2008 09:20 AM

                                  Yes, but your average restauranteur can't afford to charge the prices that Thomas Keller and Alice Waters do. Those places are clearly special occasion places; people just can't afford to eat there every day. Most places where people dine on a regular basis are not of their caliber.

                                  1. re: kimmer1850
                                    jgg13 Feb 21, 2008 09:22 AM

                                    The thing is though, it'd only be stupid people who would be shocked at the "higher prices" because in reality the prices would likely be the same as what folks pay now (when one includes the tip, etc)

                                    1. re: jgg13
                                      dolores Feb 21, 2008 02:18 PM

                                      Who are these 'stupid' people?

                                      1. re: dolores
                                        jgg13 Feb 22, 2008 05:39 AM

                                        The same people that get fooled when prices are $x.99 instead of $x+1.

                                        1. re: jgg13
                                          dolores Feb 22, 2008 05:48 AM

                                          I still think you underestimate restaurant patrons. I am one who 'starts' at 20% and works downwards for poor service, with no tip for abominable service. I am fortunate in that I don't see much abominable service.

                                          While I wouldn't mind a 20% upcharge or auto-grat built into my food prices, I sinCEREly doubt that the server and those tipped out by the server would GET that built in tip.

                                          I am not sure patrons are 'stupid'. Suspicious, perhaps, cynical no doubt. I don't think I'd like to see either method of dispensing with tips implemented in my area.

                                          But no matter. As I said, I'd ask the server IF they were getting the auto-grat or a built-in tip from the higher prices. If they say no, I'd still tip them as much as my budget would allow.

                                          1. re: dolores
                                            jgg13 Feb 22, 2008 07:12 AM

                                            The point is that many people aren't good at factoring in "hidden costs", even when they're well known. If there are two menus, one with prices 15-20% lower than the other but an expectation that you're going to leave an extra 15-20% - many folks would automatically gravitate to that one subconsciously believing it to be "cheaper". Even when you *know* that's what is going on, its hard to fight that effect. My point is that unless *every* restaurant went to that model, it'd be financial suicide for most of the places (outside of some niches, as others in this thread have pointed out) who do that because their prices are going to "seem" higher.

                                            And I'm not talking about an autograt. I'm talking about actually having higher prices such that the server are being paid a normal wage. That would make it so that a server could apply for the job, know up front that they were going to make $X over Y amount of time. If they thought that pay rate was not worth the particular job/restaurant they could choose to work somewhere else. This is how it works in most industries (obviously excepting commission based - which while it has similar advantages/disadvantages to a tip model IMO, isn't quite as annoying to me as a customer).

                                    2. re: kimmer1850
                                      alanbarnes Feb 21, 2008 10:09 AM

                                      While you're right about Keller's restaurants, I disagree about Chez Panisse. It's not exactly budget fare, but neither is it strictly a special-occasion restaurant. In fact, the prices in the cafe are very reasonable compared to most sit-down restaurants--I've never seen an entree over $30, and the vast majority are under $25. Given the quality of the food, it's no suprise that the place has many regulars. Downstairs is a little more of a splurge--during the week, a four-course prix-fixe dinner is $65. But that's still not anywhere near the top of the price range for the area.

                                      To be fair, a vacancy at one of Chez Panisse's tables is a rare and short-lived occurrence. So the volume of buiness and the consistency of that volume probably ensure a level of stability in gross sales that most restaurants don't enjoy, which in turn makes it easier to guarantee a certain level of income to the staff. Nevertheless, it's an interesting business model, and as a former server (okay, it was near the dawn of time, but I still identify), I support it.

                                      1. re: kimmer1850
                                        ccbweb Feb 21, 2008 10:11 AM

                                        Chez Panisse really isn't _that_ expensive. Including the 17% service charge and 8.75% sales tax, you can eat in the Cafe for right about $50 per person not including alcohol (but including the filtered tap water, sparkling or not) -- I'll not that in calculating that I went with an average sort of price for their menu...about $10 for a starter, $20 for an entree and $10 for a dessert. Its possible to increase that total to as high as $63 if you choose the most expensive item in each section...a bit more if you go for sides of olives and select a cheese course. To eat in the main restaurant with the pre fixe during the week is about $82 (again, before alcohol).

                                        So, it's definitely more than many but it's not out of site comparatively speaking to lots of restaurants that don't include a service charge.

                                      2. re: alanbarnes
                                        BlueHerons Feb 27, 2008 11:34 AM

                                        And how much of the population have actually eaten at Alice Waters or Thomas Keller's restaurants?

                                        It just doesn't work for the average restaurant or it would already be industry standard.

                                        1. re: BlueHerons
                                          babaoriley7 Mar 2, 2008 04:56 AM

                                          It does work in other parts of the world. I understand there are regulations in Europe but the businesses survive and it works there.

                                          1. re: babaoriley7
                                            jgg13 Mar 3, 2008 09:11 AM

                                            The difference is that *all* places do that over there as it is the law. It'd likely be suicide here if places just started "deciding" to do it on their own - as at the end of the day, the only real effect is that the prices on the menu would go up and the customers would think its too expensive (w/o realizing what's going on)

                                            1. re: jgg13
                                              Harters Mar 9, 2008 04:23 AM

                                              Just by clarification, it is by no means the case "over here" that "all" places follow the same practice. Different practices exist in different countries and the law is rarely involved. For example, in France, a service charge (auto-grat?) will be added. In Spain, there is rarely a service charge but a tip of around 5% - 10% might be left in high-end places (elsewhere leaving few coins is fine).

                                              In the UK, we have a mixed situation. Most middle range (and upwards) places have a service charge (around 10 - 12.5%). Elsewhere leaving a 10% tip is usual. It is clear from the menu and the bill (when it's presented) what the situation is.

                                              We are not a stupid nation and are able to tell one from the other in the full knowledge of what's going on. Americans are not stupid either.

                                              So long as a restaurant makes it's policy clear there is no problem either for it or its customers.

                                              Even with the national differences, you will never see tipping even being discussed on a European foodie board - it is simply a non-issue. Perhaps evidence in itself that it works fine.


                                              1. re: Harters
                                                invinotheresverde Mar 9, 2008 10:36 AM

                                                Why is it that the British are known as atrociously bad tippers when they visit the States then?

                                                1. re: invinotheresverde
                                                  Harters Mar 10, 2008 10:24 AM

                                                  Not sure how you make the leap from what I said to what you conclude but whatever. You'll have to hope there's a poor-tipping Brit reading the thread who is prepared to answer your entirely non-provocative post.

                                                  For myself, I try and understand a country's customs before I visit (hence my comments about France & Spain above). Not everyone does. And if they don't, they might assume customs are the same as in their own country - particularly as the tip rate is roughly the same across Europe (which is where most of us regularly holiday ).

                                                  It's like when Americans visit the UK - they don''t know our customs so will tip the 15-20% on top of the 12.5% service charge. Our servers just love you - please keep visiting :-)

                                                  1. re: Harters
                                                    invinotheresverde Mar 10, 2008 10:39 AM

                                                    "We are not a stupid nation and are able to tell one from the other in the full knowledge of what's going on."

                                                    Sorry if I misconstrued. I just interpreted this to mean that if Brits know how the system works in Europe, why don't the majority seem to know how it works in America?

                                                    Thank you for being one of the "good guys". It's always nice to hear my staff talk about receiving nice tips when they weren't anticipated.

                                                    I'm pretty sure most Americans DO know the British customs; they simply feel "weird" not leaving a tip.

                                                    1. re: invinotheresverde
                                                      Harters Mar 10, 2008 11:12 AM

                                                      No worries. I meant that it's very easy for folk to get used to the service charge idea and you easily spot which places have it and which you need to tip traditionally in. It isnt misleading and, as such, there's no reason why it can't work in the US. In fact, three places I visited in NYC in September did have a service charge and it was easy to spot even though we hadnt expected to see it - a bit sneaky that they hadnt advertised their intent on the menu, though.

                                                      I'd also be more than happy to confirm that many of my compatriots may also just be cheapskates. Holidays to the US are not cheap for us (even allowing for the exchange rate) - which is why I can only afford to visit about every 4 - 5 years.

                                                      And hey, fellow Brits - learn the customs; be ambassadors for our nation; do the right thing.


                                  2. h
                                    hsk Feb 20, 2008 09:39 PM

                                    It depends on your expectations. Most restaurants "state-side" have professional servers who would not work for merely a "living wage". Speaking for myself, I'd much rather tip generously to my professional servers who, with tips, likely earn as much as the other professional people I deal with, than have to be served by people who are happy with a living wage.

                                    6 Replies
                                    1. re: hsk
                                      jgg13 Feb 21, 2008 07:33 AM

                                      The notion that they're getting a "living wage" doesn't mean that all servers would be on a subsitance level. It'd be like every other occupation - low end places the servers would get paid less. High end places, they'd be paid more.

                                      1. re: jgg13
                                        Harters Feb 21, 2008 07:45 AM

                                        Correct. It is rare in the UK for servers to be paid minimum wage. It is usually a little more at around £6 - £7 an hour. In addition, we have tipping or a service charge (I think Americans call that an auto-grat) at around 10 - 12.5%.

                                        Like the OP, I would prefer UK (and other European countries) to go further and simply include service in the menu price.

                                        1. re: Harters
                                          soupkitten Feb 22, 2008 11:19 AM

                                          hmm. $11.76-$13.72/hr for every server everywhere in the u.s, plus autograt. bet that would increase the cost of a lot of lattes. with jgg's example of low end-high end, what are we talking, exactly: $11.76/hr for a starbuck's barista, through, say $70/hr at alinea (roughly 6x)?

                                          1. re: soupkitten
                                            Harters Feb 22, 2008 02:24 PM

                                            For your context, a Starbuck's "tall" latte in the UK is about £1.80. Very reasonable price for the UK.

                                            1. re: Harters
                                              Lizard Mar 13, 2008 03:46 AM

                                              Lucky you where you are. Admittedly, I do not drink lattes nor do I frequent Starbucks, but as Costa's spend £2 for a medium Americano.

                                              OK, maybe not so stark, but I'm pretty sure the lattes and caps run £2+ and very plus. I suppose I should go outside. But if I did, I'd realise I'm surrounded by posh students and tourists who don't mind spending this kind of money.

                                              It is all so dear that I rely on my kettle and coffee maker in my office.

                                              1. re: Lizard
                                                Harters Mar 13, 2008 09:36 AM

                                                Actually, Lizard, I'm more a Costa man myself. I got the Starbucks price by a web search.

                                                I'm also retired so it's usually kettle and Nescafe Blend 37, chez Harters.


                                    2. r
                                      rweater Feb 22, 2008 01:52 PM

                                      A restaurant in my neighborhood promotes that it "pays its employees a living wage" and yes, the prices are higher than a lot of places that sell similar fare. It's kind of a breakfast/lunch place that leans toward organic and artisanal type foods.

                                      Despite this, they still include the tip line on the charge slip. I am not a stingy tipper, but I don't feel that I need to offer a large tip here, because it's mostly a self-serve restaurant. You order at a counter, get your own coffee/water, and they bring your food to you when it's ready.So I don't consider them to do the full job of a regular server.

                                      On the other hand, I'm not clear on what a "living wage" really means. It's like "affordable housing." For whom exactly?

                                      1 Reply
                                      1. re: rweater
                                        jgg13 Feb 22, 2008 07:37 PM

                                        I think those tip lines are just automagically added by the POS software.

                                      2. b
                                        boltnut55 Mar 8, 2008 09:54 PM

                                        Here's what I want to know... one of the reasons that we're told to tip is that servers get a lower than minimum wage. Servers in San Francisco get regular minimum wage, and the city has its own minimum wage which is $9.14/hour. Why am I tipping them then? I know why, but do you know what I mean? It's like "you should tip at least 15% because...." but what if one of those reasons were removed? Aren't we still made to feel obligated to tip 15%? No one is tipping less suddenly, right? Because of recent law required that employers with over a certain number of employees provide healthcare coverage, a restaurant I went to also added a 3.5% fee to the tab. <sigh> And if I dared to "share" or ask for an extra plate, it's going to cost me several more dollars. Perhaps I'm the only one feeling nickeled and dimed (yeah, lately I've been eating out again).

                                        10 Replies
                                        1. re: boltnut55
                                          dolores Mar 9, 2008 04:25 AM

                                          >>but what if one of those reasons were removed?

                                          Good question, boltnut55.

                                          If servers in this area got a wage commensurate to the cost of living, I guess even I would agree not to tip them.

                                          I think.

                                          How would I know that each server was paid the same and got the health benefits if the law so dictated? Not all employees in other businesses are paid the same across the board and not all have equally good health benefits.

                                          I think there are too many variables for this to occur, so it probably won't. Perhaps in other countries where this has been in effect for awhile, it works. But I don't see this happening in this area anytime soon.

                                          1. re: dolores
                                            jgg13 Mar 10, 2008 07:32 AM

                                            Why should all servers get exactly the same pay and exactly the same health benefits?

                                            As you point out, this isn't the case in other industries as well. People are paid at a level that balances out to their overall worth to their employer. If they feel they're underpaid, they could always find a new employer if indeed the situation was the way you describe.

                                            1. re: jgg13
                                              invinotheresverde Mar 10, 2008 10:42 AM

                                              Servers AREN'T paid the same wages. My last year waiting tables, I took home over $70,000 working part time. I doubt the 17 year old at IHOP is clearing that.

                                              The service industry is also commensurate with experience.

                                              1. re: invinotheresverde
                                                jgg13 Mar 10, 2008 10:46 AM

                                                I realize that. But Dolores stated: "How would I know that each server was paid the same and got the health benefits if the law so dictated?" and "Not all employees in other businesses are paid the same across the board and not all have equally good health benefits.", with the implication on both of these statements that it should influence tipping.

                                                I was questioning why one would think that they *should* all be equal in the first place.

                                                1. re: jgg13
                                                  invinotheresverde Mar 10, 2008 10:48 AM


                                                  In my opinion, they shouldn't.

                                                  1. re: invinotheresverde
                                                    jgg13 Mar 10, 2008 11:18 AM

                                                    Agreed. I've said before, and I'll say again - I see no reason why the 17yo at IHOP (as you put it) should be getting anything but a minimal wage (not necessarily "minimum wage") when all is said and done, and I'd expect high end servers to be pulling in high end wages.

                                                    Therein lies the folly of "I know how hard it is to try to live on servers' wages" as an argument - I don't really view 70k for part time work as being a hard life ;) (not insinuating that you imply this, just an example) - but the experience level/skill level/knowledge level to reach that point is one where the server probably deserves a salary that high as compared to their lower skilled brothers & sisters.

                                                    1. re: jgg13
                                                      invinotheresverde Mar 10, 2008 11:41 AM

                                                      We seem to be in complete agreement.

                                                      I was lucky at my last serving gig, but it took me years to get there. I do think that most waiters aren't getting rich, and that it must be difficult to live on their wages. But definitely, definitely they don't all deserve to be paid equally.

                                                      1. re: invinotheresverde
                                                        boltnut55 Mar 12, 2008 10:02 PM

                                                        Trying to figure out where to insert my reply... I started out by saying that the waiters are getting $9.14/hour because that is the MINIMUM WAGE in San Francisco. From what I heard (mostly here), normally waiters get less than minimum wage because it's supplemented by their tips... right? Therefore, when servers' wages had to be at the minimum wage in SF, I'm assuming that their employers are paying only the minimum because they have to, not because they want to. Therefore, my and Dolores' assumption is that they are getting the same wage, that is, their hourly wage. I highly doubt an employer would pay MORE than the minimum wage because in previous years, they were paying the below minimum wage, whatever that was.

                                          2. re: boltnut55
                                            soupkitten Mar 10, 2008 09:38 AM

                                            gosh durned stupid federalism-- hard enough for americans to understand, impossible for foreign visitors, it would seem!

                                            a few questions re: california's (& sf's) approach
                                            do you think the 3.5% charge on your tab is a fair charge for users of a service (diners) to pay, in order to improve conditions for those who serve them, including non-tipped employees (dishwasher, cook, bookkeeper)? out of curiosity what is the number of employees above which healthcare coverage must be offered? do you think these same policies could work in other areas of the country-- maine, say, or georgia? do you think that very highly skilled food service employees, currently employed in small fine dining establishments with few employees, might go work for fast-food chains with many employees in order to gain health care coverage? what does this mean for small restaurants & the service that diners receive?

                                            1. re: soupkitten
                                              boltnut55 Mar 12, 2008 10:09 PM

                                              Oh, some good questions... I think San Francisco would be THE place where paying the extra charge would be more accepted, but of course, I don't like it at all - it's expensive for the restaurants who do business and can't afford the extra health care costs, and I don't want to pay for it either.

                                              The law regulates private employers w/20 or more employees and non-profit with 50 or more employees. I'm not sure if that would make employees go to a different employer... I'm guessing if the tips are good, it might help them pay for healthcare premiums and then some rather than going w/a fast food chain w/no tips. Too much analyzing... I just want a meal that I don't have to cook!

                                              The local news is doing a story on this topic tonight, by the way: http://www.ktvu.com/video/15580452/in...

                                          3. Paul Weller Mar 9, 2008 08:52 AM

                                            Caveat emptor. Paying what people refer to as a "living wage" translates to higher prices across the board. Think about most the the employees in the service industry you have encounterd. Does a person have to go to college, obtain some in depth specialized training, is there a vast shortage of people willing to do the work? IMO the answer is no in most cases. In California they pay McDonalds employees $8 an hour, and they cannot even make change or get a simple order correct about 30 percent of the time. Lots of people are underpaid but there is also a high percentage of people overpaid for the skill level and effeciency of the work they do.

                                            1. r
                                              redwinetongue Mar 10, 2008 10:49 AM

                                              Tipping is seen as optional, but the servers pay a tip-out which subsidizes the wages of the rest of the restaurant staff and restaurants rely on this to help with wage costs. If you simply do not tip because you don't believe in it, not because the service was terrible, please know that you are cutting into what the waiter takers home because the tip-out is based on gross sales and can be up to 8%. This can include management getting a cut as well, so everyone is on the food chain.

                                              Show Hidden Posts