Trump's Department of Labor proposes rule that lets employers steal employees' tips

boing
41

The fact of the matter is that you are simply creating an argument for why you should be allowed to pay a person less than minimum wage. You have even tried to argue that some people don’t need minimum wage. The problem however is that minimum wage is the wage we consider to be the lowest compensation one can offer before employment becomes slavery. It is not the national base pay. It is the bare legal minimum and you argue it’s too much.

I should also mention that I’m an American and I’m happy to pay a little more if I know I don’t need to tip and that my server is being compensated fairly.

And some made even more money by banning tips.

Of course, it helps when you don’t break our anti-trust laws to collude in increasing your profits on the backs of your employees.

In the end you have to decide what’s more important to you - treating employees with the respect and dignity they deserve as people by paying a fair wage or increasing your bottom line in order to enrich yourself at the expense of your employees.

5 Likes
42

Oh, gee, I hope you don’t have to pay rent/aren’t pitched out of home. Ass. Everybody deserves a fair wage.

3 Likes
43

Kids dropping out of school to take on jobs to help support their families is still a thing in the US. Paying those “teens” less takes food out of the mouths of their younger siblings and sometimes their grandparents or parents.

7 Likes
44

Ugh. I explained in an earlier post why this is magical fairy thinking.

Sure, there are people that abuse workers and enrich themselves. I’m not one of them, and they’re not a majority.

The idea that most restaurant owners are rolling in profit that they could easily distribute to workers is just laughable. People have no idea how little money there is, yet somehow everyone already “knows” that restaurants are a risky business.

We both want a revolution. You seem to want to burn the world down and see what’s left. I prefer trying to fix it first before starting the fire.

1 Like
45

Since your solution seems to include wanting to pay teenagers less than a living wage because they “don’t need one” and “aren’t worth paying highly”, I’ll happily use you as kindling.

2 Likes
47

Well, that isn’t what I said. But if your first impulse is to attack someone that shares your goals but comes from a different perspective, aren’t you part of the problem?

48

#EconomicAnxiety

It boils down to this: sometimes you have to choose between doing right or being fed.

1 Like
49

Here’s another difference between European and American restaurants. What is the definition of success?

Cheesecake Factory style restaurants are rare in Europe. Chains exist, certainly. But in USA, they are very common and there are many to choose from. In Europe most restaurants are not chains, and are not themed.

Few restaurants in Europe are decorated with kitsch. Few are “genre” restaurants. Most restaurants in Europe are simply that: eateries, bistros, cafes, etc., with no mention of ethnicity or theme. Varying levels of quality and decor, but generally without reference to the specific style they are trying to accomplish. They don’t. If you’re in Italy, it’s Italian food, often but not always with a bunch of seafood options. If it’s France, you generally get French food.

Probably 50 to 75% of all restaurants in Europe are like this. The other 25% might be themed, ethnic, chains, genre or specialty places. It seems like the opposite in USA: 75% of all restaurants are chains, themes or genred, and the remainder 25% are sole proprietorships, although those are usually genred specifically.

In Europe, the owner, or a family member if the owner is old or retired, or a very close associate who is the GM ALSO stands there and maitre d’s, serves, assists, sometimes even cooks. They serve as an FTE, usually with longer hours than a regular employee. If it’s a married couple, often both are FTEs at their restaurant, as well as handling the management. This offsets a large portion of the wages that are going out the door, allowing for higher wages.

In the USA, when the owner is not necessarily the operator, then the restaurant has to pay everybody there, and this lowers the amount of money available to increase wages. And, one would think that the economy of scale of a large chain would allow for more money to go to staff.

Not so. In the USA, the expectations are different. The expectation of the owner is that they clear a wide margin, toss the plebes some spare change, and that “in 2017 we do better than 2016.” And if they do NOT clear a wide margin, they 1. shrink the product, since food cost is huge and 2. they shrink the workforce or give them a pittance or don’t give raises.

So capitalist. Funny how after we threw off Feudalism in favor of the Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, we now are doing the same thing those medieval European assholes used to do to the lower classes: Scrooge McDuck them into subservience…

You can’t have both. You can’t have a wide profit margin for the owner and living wages for the staff. Both sides must give up something. My opinion is that the staff have already given something, for decades and now it’s time for the owners to lower their millionaire aspirations. They can still be millionaires! Just 5 to 10 millionaires, not 100 millionaires! God, the rich guy club is so evil.

3 Likes
50

The idea that the owners are all profiting off of labor is misguided, generally. Confirmation bias leads people to see bad actors and apply that as the general case.

51

It seems that way, but even the big chains are struggling right now. You can Google it for references.

52

I wonder if this is because, in order to scale, chain restaurants need massive suppliers that can supply food at cheap prices. This inevitably leads to restaurants providing the same lackluster stuff that comes from Sysco, and thus the only way to vary what’s essentially the same product is the theme of the restaurant.

3 Likes
53

That’s not what viable actually means.

54

“Capable of success or continuing effectiveness; practicable”
Works for me.
Which meaning did you have in mind?

55

If the words I quoted directly from your post don’t mean what they appear to mean, then could you perhaps explain what you mean by

I agree with the “living wage” argument if the business actually requires employing people that need a living wage (teens, for example, usually don’t need one and don’t offer enough skill to be worth paying highly).

because it sure looks for all the world like you’d really like to be able to pay people who you don’t consider worthy of a living wage as little as you please if it’ll keep your business open.

1 Like
56

I don’t take seriously people that extract phrases from context, apply their own inflammatory interpretation, then demand a response. I guess you’re not interested in finding common cause, so: part of the problem.

57

Erm, for the most part labor is exactly where profit comes from… (un-exclusive of restaurant industry)

1 Like
58

Right. Not what I meant. The idea that there are fat-cat restaurant owners getting rich off of labor is GENERALLY misguided.

59

“Success”? For whom?
“Effective”? For whom?
“Practicable”? Again, for whom?

Show your work.

Edited to add: if it’s only viable for one party, then “viable” probably isn’t an applicable term.

60

Oh - now a different question. No worries. Success, effectiveness and practicality of the business model for the business owner, as I would have thought obvious from the context, i.e. viable for the business owner. But thanks for pointing out what others also said, even in the face of my repeated acknowledgements that it was equally not something I agreed with.
Good day.

61

You used the word “viable” in a way that contradicted your statements otherwise. Do you understand how that might be annoying?

My point being, if the business model only looks at one side, or only examples of successes, then it’s not a viable business model.