This site references a few of the California cases.
The US Code of Federal Regulations describes what a tip is.
Even so, the state of NY has managed to f*ck up the concept by introducing the notion of a mandatory gratuity, which is a contradiction in terms.
That ejclaw.com article is going on three years old. And given the lack of legal clarity after Etheridge (assuming that’s still controlling) you could easily find lawyers to argue either side. And the profession as a whole is happy to argue both sides of any issue, which is how we ended up with a lack of clarity. Well, actually, that started with the legislature defining things in such a way that lawyers saw an opportunity:
“Gratuity” includes any tip, gratuity, money, or part thereof that has been paid or given to or left for an employee by a patron of a business over and above the actual amount due the business for services rendered or for goods, food, drink, or articles sold or served to the patron.
Did the patron mean to leave the tip for someone that never came to the table? If a waiter asks one law firm, they could make a case for “no.” If a bartender asks another, they could make a case for “yes.” And then you’re in court, where both sides will look for a way to put the restaurant on the hook.
The whole legal part of tipping, which is partly based on labor laws and partly based on court decisions, is so screwed up like there is no tomorrow. And, of course, local, state, and federal laws may apply.
I really hope the Pasjoli crew succeeds in making their service included model work. It’s so much more consumer-friendly and hopefully also results in a more equitable split in pay for the staff. I really hate mandatory service charges and 5% health care charges, but I understand the psychology of why business do it. I wish they understood how scummy it feels to some of their consumers.
I also have mixed feeling about the American Beauty situation. On the one hand, an incredible self-own by the management team in how they messaged changing the tip pool to the staff and follow up communication. This is something that people should have known when they were signing up for the job. To spring this on them right before you re-open was a recipe for disaster.
On the other hand, I find the demands of the servers disingenuous. If they really cared about back of house pay they would be fine with an increased tip pool split from 70-30 to 62.5-37.5. They could instead be asking for base pay increases above $15/hr to make up for a decrease in their total compensation. Instead what they’re actually saying is they want to decrease the variable compensation for the back of house and make up for it with an increase in base pay for BOH. But… you don’t see the back of house out protesting with them, do you? Because really what these servers are saying is when business (and tips) are good, they want to keep that higher 70% of it and don’t want the BOH to have a bigger slice of that pie.
I prefer service charges. Saves me the trouble of calculating the tip and there’s no racist history behind it.
Except that service charges are mandatory. With true gratuities, you leave as little or as much as you want.
Employee compensation is none of my business. If there are problems I complain. I leave 20%. Anyone who tips less than 15% in California should be allowed only in restaurants with service charges.
I usually leave around 30 percent if the service is any good. Totally agree with the sentiment that employee compensation is not something that a restaurant customer should have to think about.
Yeah I should clarify, I prefer when the service charge is included in the menu price if they are going to do it (that is how Pasjoli does it: all prices include service). Makes it easier to figure out what something is going to cost with everything included. I mean, get me on the train where taxes are included in the price as well! Although I believe there are laws that can limit that. Similarly, I prefer service charges to tipping because it’s farther on the continuum of charging for the real cost of dining out. Also recognize that the reality is complicated and service included is not viable or practical for everyone.
Appreciate recentering on the article/larger isssue. Thread did get hijacked which was partly my fault! And to your point, I’m of two minds about the thesis.
The article blames individual consumers for what is both an individual and also a systemic problem: fees, permitting, food systems as well as consumers unwilling to pay more. I love restaurants, don’t want everything to be a Cheesecake Factory and will pay. And while one article can’t analyze everything, it shades into the idea that restaurants are failed by consumers, which I’m both sympathetic to and troubled by.
The Alimento contretemps is illustrative. No doubt Pollack’s heart is in the right place and it might be an unsolvable problem, but it’s tough as a consumer when you have no purchase into how various workers are getting paid or how profitable the restaurant itself is. Some of this gets tricky real quick. Not gonna wade into Botanica lol, but sympathetic to Guisados too. It’s pandora’s box. When the narrative is support and not capitalistic fee for good, it begs the question ‘what am I paying for?’
Part of me, the part that brought up interchange fees, thinks the focus on the individual obscures systemic problems. That the Amazonification of the world and the slow death of small business is not simply gonna be solved by individuals choosing to pay more.
It’s probably a both/and. But since Wal-Mart (and now Amazon), there’s a strain of thinking that the solutions to these problems are on the individual, and I don’t think the last 30 years of American politics or society has borne that out.
Couldn’t find the discussion on the healthcare surcharges from a few years back so figured this is the next best place: I’m starting to see ~4% surcharges to comply with the higher minimum wage. I find it pretty off-putting, more than the healthcare surcharges because this more feels like straight up complaining vs. the healthcare surcharges, which felt more like they were coming from a sense of trying to do the right thing even if the result is the same. As a consumer, I’d vastly prefer they just raise prices.
What higher minimum wage?
LA County?
Yep .