I don't tip on takeout... Am I a ******?

[roger_tucker]

Here's a fun one: who tips at a buffet?

I do, generally a token amount. They clear dirty dishes and maybe refill drinks depending on where you go. I will say I've gone to higher end buffets, say at the Marriott for a mother's day brunch, and tipped the full 20%. Golden Coral? 10% maybe. You might be able to make me feel bad about myself and force me to change that habit if I were shown that they worked under the same arrangement as full service restaurants.

Quite frankly, I am completely open to tipping if service is provided and I know at least part of staffs wages depend on it. As I said previously, it is the custom in the US & and like the custom or not that is the expectation. I know these people work hard, for less than minimum wage, in a thankless job and put up with more crap from a self deserving public than many of us could even imagine. I have been fortunate and spending an extra $6 on a $30 meal is not going to break my wallet. If that was the case I shouldn't be eating out in the first place.

 

[b-boy]

I'm a pretty good tipper. I tip for takeout, eat-in, delivery, and at the bar. I generally do 20% for eat-in and at the bar. Probably 10% for everything else.

I do get annoyed at places that automatically add it to the bill. I've overtipped a few times when I wasn't paying attention to that.

I also get really annoyed at places that throw tipping in your face, have signs everywhere, or that get annoyed when they feel your tip is too low.

I had an experience at a restaurant once - I got really, really bad service, so I left a small tip (I've only done that once or twice). The waiter actually followed me into the parking lot complaining about the tip. He even brought the manager with him. I couldn't believe it. I've never been back there.

Last weekend I was at a music festival in Quebec and the beer servers were very aggressive about tips. When they handed you a beer thay said 'A tip is not included in the price'. It got pretty annoying. At one point I didn't have money for a tip and the guy got really nasty and stalked off. This wasn't at a bar either - it was the guys who carry around the trays of beer in the crowd.

I saw one guy buy a $5 beer. The beer seller gave him $5 in change, then stuck out his hand. The buyer said he didn't want change. He wanted a $5 bill. The seller said that the tip is not included. There was a mini stand-off between the two, but the seller finally caved and gave the guy the $5 bill, made a snide comment, and stalked off.

Personally I'd love to see the whole tipping thng go away, but that probably won't happen.

 

[roger_tucker]

I do get annoyed at places that automatically add it to the bill. I've overtipped a few times when I wasn't paying attention to that.

I think a lot of places are stopping this practice these days. If I'm not mistaken the IRS has changes the rules concerning this practice. In the past it was considered as a pure tip not part of the employee wage. I think the new IRS rule says that automatic gratuity is now considered as part of the employees wage which means the employer has to pay their share of taxes on those wages. Rather than pay the taxes employers are just getting rid of the automatic gratuity. I'm willing to be wrong on this.

 

[rmyurick]

I don't tip for someone handing me a bag of prepared food. Do you tip the grocery store for a roasted chicken? Id be more likely to tip at subway, but they seem to discourage it.

 

[hunter_le five]

I think a lot of places are stopping this practice these days. If I'm not mistaken the IRS has changes the rules concerning this practice. In the past it was considered as a pure tip not part of the employee wage. I think the new IRS rule says that automatic gratuity is now considered as part of the employees wage which means the employer has to pay their share of taxes on those wages. Rather than pay the taxes employers are just getting rid of the automatic gratuity. I'm willing to be wrong on this.

Again, you are correct.

Automatic gratuities (those imposed on the customer rather than added by the customer) are now considered "sales" by the IRS and belong to the restaurant. Any amount of that given to the servers must be counted as "wages" and cannot be counted as "tips". The real kicker is that these wages cannot be counted as "tip credit" for bridging the $2.12-to-$7.25/hour gap, as well as being taxed differently. This makes it a nightmare for restaurant payroll, which is why most restaurant chains are doing away with the practice altogether. However this ends up screwing the wait staff over in a BIG way (thank you very much, IRS). We are still fighting with this issue ourselves.

 

[hunter_le five]

And that's exactly why I stated "in PA and NJ".

Granted, but you also started off by saying "I can tell you this is BS". It's not BS. That's a fact. It may not be universally true everywhere 100% of the time (in fact it's quite common), but calling it "BS" is a bit of a strong statement, a real stretch of the truth.

This is WAY off topic from what the OP is talking about though. He's talking takeout. There's no real need to tip for takeout. Nothing wrong if you want to, but it's not expected. Tipping is paying a little extra for a service provided. There is no extra service when picking up your own takeout.

Still relevant. Often times the server putting together your takeout order is a tipped employee making $2.13/hr and working under a tip-pooling scheme. That takeout order is counted in their sales, and when you don't leave a tip, they are having to pay bus/bar/host staff money based on those sales. Once again you are costing that server money by not tipping.

Again, not 100% universally true, but common enough to be a real issue. I'm not saying it's right either, but it is the way it is. I'm not advocating you tip them 15-20%, but you should at least leave a buck or two, imho.

I think that's exactly what he meant to insinuate. Otherwise, why did he include the word "actually" in his statement?

He said, "it has actually cost the server money." The inclusion of the word "actually" strongly suggests he meant to imply a negative wage. If he simply meant that they wouldn't have earned as much as they would have if you'd tipped better, he would have a) omitted the word "actually," and b) not said it at all because it's pointlessly obvious.

What does the word "actually" have to do with this? Does that word mean something other than what I think it means?

Let's look at what he said again:

So if you leave nothing or you leave the 5% special, it has actually cost the server money to tend to your cheap ass for an hour.

This statement is a fact under certain (common) tip-pooling schemes. It does ACTUALLY cost the server money to tend to a customer that leaves a $0 tip. That doesn't mean that they walk away with negative dollars, but it does mean that it ACTUALLY cost them cash money.

ac·tu·al·ly
ˈakCHo͞oəlē/Submit
adverb
adverb: actually
1.
as the truth or facts of a situation; really.
"we must pay attention to what young people are actually doing"
2.
used to emphasize that something someone has said or done is surprising.
"he actually expected me to be pleased about it!"
synonyms: really, in (actual) fact, in point of fact, as a matter of fact, in reality, in actuality, in truth, if truth be told, to tell the truth; More
used when expressing an opinion, typically one that is not expected.
"“Actually,” she said icily, “I don't care who you go out with.”"
used when expressing a contradictory opinion or correcting someone.
"“Tom seems to be happy.” “He isn't, actually, not any more.”"
synonyms: really, in (actual) fact, in point of fact, as a matter of fact, in reality, in actuality, in truth, if truth be told, to tell the truth; More
used to introduce a new topic or to add information to a previous statement.
"he had a thick Brooklyn accent—he sounded like my grandfather actually"

Nope, it means exactly what I thought it meant.

It's okay to misunderstand what someone is saying. It happens, especially when it comes to the written word, on the internet, without the social cues we are used to in face to face conversation. But to go on stubbornly insisting that someone "meant" something that is clearly not there... well that's just silly.

He stated a fact. As a restaurant payroll professional, I can attest to the statement's veracity. I'm a bit puzzled why you are so vehemently arguing the point just because you misunderstood what he was trying to say.

 

[roger_tucker]

Again, you are correct.

I have the inside track on this info. I have son, future daughter in law and many of their friends who have explained to me in gory detail many aspects of how the industry works.

I didn't want to open up another s**t storm based on kombats comments, but ...

I was talking with my son last night about this. When he was younger he worked at Joe's Crabshack. What he told me was that, indeed if their tips fall short of minimum wage for the shift (pretty rare according to him) that, yes, his paycheck would reflect the "top off" to minimum wage. However, he told me that the tip share to bartenders and hosts was not covered by that. So indeed, there were one or two rare occasions where he did not meet the minimum wage threshold and still had to tip out to the host/hostess & bartender. He said actually left his with less money in his pocket at the end of his shift than when he started.

Based on the law that I read that doesn't seem right. I didn't sound like you could not take more in a pooling agreement than than what was earned in tips. Is there some exception to tipping out bartenders and such? Does that not fall under the pooling agreement somehow?

 

[kombat]

He stated a fact. As a restaurant payroll professional, I can attest to the statement's veracity. I'm a bit puzzled why you are so vehemently arguing the point just because you misunderstood what he was trying to say.

Because the statement was at best a tautology, and thus pointless to state.

A server makes more money off of someone who leaves a $10 tip than off of someone who leaves a $0. That's self-evident. It's obvious. It's pointless to state. Someone who leaves more money results in you making more money than someone who leaves less money. There's no point in stating that.

However, if you were trying to intimate something that is non-intuitive, like suggesting that leaving a $0 tip results in the server actually losing money (as opposed to simply making less than they otherwise would have, but still a net positive), then THAT might be something worth stating. And the inclusion of the word "actually" would be appropriate to drive home the non-obviousness of what you were trying to state.

And when called out and shown that what you were trying to state was in fact false, hiding behind grammar and semantics would make a decent fallback, were it not for the stubbornly persistent characteristic of the internet that makes such things easy to recall and quote, verbatim, for all eternity.

 

[hunter_le five]

I was talking with my son last night about this. When he was younger he worked at Joe's Crabshack. What he told me was that, indeed if their tips fall short of minimum wage for the shift (pretty rare according to him) that, yes, his paycheck would reflect the "top off" to minimum wage. However, he told me that the tip share to bartenders and hosts was not covered by that. So indeed, there were one or two rare occasions where he did not meet the minimum wage threshold and still had to tip out to the host/hostess & bartender. He said actually left his with less money in his pocket at the end of his shift than when he started.

Based on the law that I read that doesn't seem right. I didn't sound like you could not take more in a pooling agreement than than what was earned in tips. Is there some exception to tipping out bartenders and such? Does that not fall under the pooling agreement somehow?

Wait staff must make at least $7.25/hr one way or another, period. (In some states it's higher, depending on what the min wage is.) Either by tips, employer-contributed wage adjustments, or both. There is no way around that, unless the restaurant is blatantly violating wage laws. They must take it all into account.

Honestly, I've never heard of a situation where someone would have to more in tip out than they received in tips at the end of the night. On a table-by-table basis, yeah, it happens, but over an entire shift? He would pretty much have to get stiffed by every single customer for that to happen. A perfect $#!t-storm. Either he did the math wrong, or that restaurant has some serious issues. And in any case he would still be making $7.25/hr towards his paycheck, even if he received $0 in tips for the night. His manager should have cut him a break if he legitimately owed more to the tip pool than he received in actual tips, and it should never be allowed to cause him to make less than minimum wage under any circumstances.

[sarcasm]Maybe he was just a lousy waiter. [/sarcasm]

 

[roger_tucker]

Because the statement was at best a tautology, and thus pointless to state.

A server makes more money off of someone who leaves a $10 tip than off of someone who leaves a $0. That's self-evident. It's obvious. It's pointless to state. Someone who leaves more money results in you making more money than someone who leaves less money. There's no point in stating that.

However, if you were trying to intimate something that is non-intuitive, like suggesting that leaving a $0 tip results in the server actually losing money (as opposed to simply making less than they otherwise would have, but still a net positive), then THAT might be something worth stating. And the inclusion of the word "actually" would be appropriate to drive home the non-obviousness of what you were trying to state.

And when called out and shown that what you were trying to state was in fact false, hiding behind grammar and semantics would make a decent fallback, were it not for the stubbornly persistent characteristic of the internet that makes such things easy to recall and quote, verbatim, for all eternity.

My friend I have tried to explain my position and be reasonable with you. You're clearly having none it. In my opinion you have baselessly accused me of hedging, hyperbole and making pointless statements. You want to ascribe something to my comments that wasn't intended? You want to reject my clarifications? I leave you to your opinions. You're certainly entitled to them.

 

[firerat]

 

[hunter_le five]

Because the statement was at best a tautology, and thus pointless to state.

A server makes more money off of someone who leaves a $10 tip than off of someone who leaves a $0. That's self-evident. It's obvious. It's pointless to state. Someone who leaves more money results in you making more money than someone who leaves less money. There's no point in stating that.

However, if you were trying to intimate something that is non-intuitive, like suggesting that leaving a $0 tip results in the server actually losing money (as opposed to simply making less than they otherwise would have, but still a net positive), then THAT might be something worth stating. And the inclusion of the word "actually" would be appropriate to drive home the non-obviousness of what you were trying to state.

And when called out and shown that what you were trying to state was in fact false, hiding behind grammar and semantics would make a decent fallback, were it not for the stubbornly persistent characteristic of the internet that makes such things easy to recall and quote, verbatim, for all eternity.

I'm not saying that a server making a $0 tip is making $10 less than a server making a $10 tip. I agree, that would be a rather pointless observation to make.

I'm saying that a server making a $0 tip actually makes NEGATIVE dollars on THAT TABLE, because of the tip pooling scheme.

Example - Server A sees a notorious group of bad-tippers come into a restaurant. She avoids that table like the plague and instead hides in the kitchen. Consequently she makes $0 in tips from that table. She does not make any sales either, so she pays nothing into the tip pool. Her net take for that table is $0.

Server B sucks it up and does her job, and takes the table. The table racks up a $100 bill, and leaves no tip, because they are @$$holes. She pays $5 into the tip pool. Her net take is -$5.

They both made $0 in tips from that table, but it only cost one of them money.

It has actually cost server B $5 to wait on this table, out of her pocket.

We are not talking about opportunity cost here, or how someone deciding to tip her $10 instead of $15 "cost" her $5. She literally had to PAY $5 for the privilege of waiting on some jerks. That is not the same as "making less than they could have made".

A server makes more money off of someone who leaves a $10 tip than off of someone who leaves a $0.

You are talking about something else entirely. This is not what we are discussing.

There is no false statement here. This is in fact a common problem inherent to the restaurant industry that I deal with on a regular basis.

 

[podz]

It has actually cost server B $5 to wait on this table, out of her pocket.

They can't make waitstaff contribute when it would leave them with less than minimum wage and anything over minimum wage is not an entitlement. Lack of capital gain is not equal to capital loss, unless you are entitled.

 

[kombat]

My friend I have tried to explain my position and be reasonable with you. You're clearly having none it. In my opinion you have baselessly accused me of hedging, hyperbole and making pointless statements.

No, let's be clear. I accused you of making false/incorrect statements. Someone else then said it's possible that you instead simply meant to imply that the server would make "less profit" as opposed to actually losing money, to which I pointed out that if that's what you actually meant, then such a statement would be pointless because it's a mathematical tautology.

Besides, just moments ago, you said this:

I was talking with my son last night about this. When he was younger he worked at Joe's Crabshack. [...] He said actually left his with less money in his pocket at the end of his shift than when he started.

Awkward grammar structure aside, you just explicitly said what I've been accusing you of saying all along, and what you've been trying to claim you didn't mean to say! That he literally had less money at the end of his shift than when he started, and that if he'd just stayed home, he would have had more money at the end of the day!

That's exactly what I accused you of claiming in the first place, and pointed out is not possible!

Does nobody else see this??? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

There are only a few explanations for this. Either a) your son is mistaken, b) your son is a liar, c) your son was doing some creative accounting (such as including gas, parking, meals during his shift, and other expenses against his income in order to diminish what he considers his "net wages"), or d) Joe's Crabshack was breaking the law and underpaying him, illegally.

 

[DrunkleJon]

Okay, 71 replies and still no one said

"Its not the lack of tipping that makes you a ******..."

yet? Geez, I expected better.

 

[roger_tucker]

There are only a few explanations for this. Either a) your son is mistaken, b) your son is a liar, c) your son was doing some creative accounting (such as including gas, parking, meals during his shift, and other expenses against his income in order to diminish what he considers his "net wages"), or d) Joe's Crabshack was breaking the law and underpaying him, illegally.

You are outrageous. Now not only am I pointless and hyperbolic, you want to drag my son into it (liar, creative accounting) Read the comment again. First of all, my son made the statement to me last night, after I posted the original comment. Secondly I was asking the question to someone who might be able to clarify what my son said, not making a statement. Maybe I was mistaken about what he said.

Better yet, I'll just admit to your accusations. You sir, have it all figured out. You nailed me for what I am. A charlatan, a hedger, manipulator of grammar, and a maniac liar. The mask is off. Well done.

 

[Homercidal]

We're done here.