Restaurants that snaffle their staff's tips are rip-off merchants and should be boycotted

When I tip a waiter or waitress in a restaurant for good service, I expect the money to go to that individual directly, not to some grasping plutocrat lounging in a leather chair in an air-conditioned office, but that's exactly what happens at restaurant chains who snatch the tips from their poorly paid staff and keep them for themselves.

http://www.independent.co.uk...

If a restaurant advertised the fact in advance that any tips paid to staff will be seized and given instead to some faceless corporate shareholders, the customer would be very unlikely to pay any more than the basic bill, which is why, of course, they hush the practice up.

This deception is tantamount to theft and restaurant chains that rip their staff and customers off should be boycotted.

.

It should be known that I'm taking this on strictly for the sake of debate...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"When I tip a waiter or waitress in a restaurant for good service, I expect the money to go to that individual directly..." -- Pro

I understand that Pro EXPECTS the money to go directly to the individual; however, in some cases it doesn't. And just as the restaurant does not advertise that it capitalizes on its waiters tips, it also does not advertise that 100% of the tips you leave go directly to the waiters either. By that logic, the restaurant has done nothing wrong. No false advertising has been made.

In choosing to leave a tip, you are choosing to leave money to the establishment that has provided you (hopefully) with good food, a good atmosphere and good service. Without the establishment, the waiters would have been in no position to receive that tip from you. Therefore, it can be said, in fact, that it is indeed the restaurant that is deserving of your gracious tipping - not the individual. Unless a restaurant advertises that all tips go to waiters, and does not make good on that word, can the restaurant be deemed at fault.

So long as an individual earns at least the legal minimum wage from an employer, no wrong has been done. It is up to the patron to inquire about where his money goes and decide whether or not he or she would like to leave a tip. If not, the waiters must still earn what is deemed the minimum legal wage regardless of whether people tipped a total of $1,000 that week or $0.

The fact remains that the waiter chose to accept that job, and by choosing to keep that job, they are accepting the current policies including the chance that they will earn strictly the minimum wage and no more, regardless of the hard/good work they put into their service. If they don't like that restaurant's policy, they can choose to work elsewhere.

Furthermore, in almost NO restaurant does a waiter receive 100% of their tip money anyway. At the end of the night, a server typically has to 'tip out' to the evening's bar-tender(s) and/or host(ess) and bus boys to name a few.

In regard as to why these establishments should not be boycotted, remember that even if a waiter is only earning the minimum wage, that is still a job that an employer is providing to an employee. To boycott the business and hurt the owner's pocketbooks would only mean less jobs, and the employed individuals who depend on that job might lose it as a result. Plus, patrons who enjoy the restaurant would be giving up an outing that they enjoy.

At the end of the day, there are other ways to get around the unjustice that Pro feels has been done. One, he can choose to NOT TIP AT ALL. Like I said, the waiter would still earn the same amount of money at the end of the pay period (at least minimum wage - the same as MANY other workers). Two, people can keep tips low and choose to pay a smaller amount for the service/ambiance/food. Three, the patron could inquire with management how the tipping amount gets distributed. Four, the patron could even choose to discuss tip amounts 'privately' with the waiter. In other words, specify to the waiter that this money must go specifically to him.

We must keep in mind that when it comes to tipping, there is never 100% justice. Waiter A could provide excellent service to a family of 8 and receive a $2 tip. Waiter B could have been a horrible server to a dining couple of 2 and receive a $20 tip. Is that fair? Probably not. But boycotting the restaurant certainly won't solve that problem, nor will it solve this one. I'm sure just the threat of a boycott or a simple discussion between several patrons and the management would help. If not, c'est la vie.

Thanks theLwerd, for taking up this debate.

In essence, I agree with my opponent's assessment of the situation regarding the legal aspect of not allowing the staff to keep their tips, and in not advertising the fact they they employ such (shady) practices in advance the restaurants are not acting outside the law.

The main thrust of my original argument was that those of us who live in capitalist countries have a choice of which establishment to place our custom with and that this type of immoral corporate greed should not be rewarded.

My opponent goes on to point out that should we choose to boycott restaurants that swindle their staff and customers, the loss of trade will effect not only the grasping corporate shareholders but their employees as well, who may lose their jobs.

This is true, but the lost trade will choose alternative restaurants with more ethical employment policies and the redundant staff could apply for jobs at one of these eateries instead.

With thanks in advance for the voters' support and good luck to my opponent.

BE

"...this type of immoral corporate greed should not be rewarded"

Maybe not, but we as consumers 'reward' these types of greedy organizations all the time. Just because some restaurants are brought to light in this particular example does not mean that they are any worse than 90% of other businesses out there. Using tip money to contribute to staff's wages may be unethical, but exploiting workers who earn 10 cents a day for 16 hours of labor is also pretty unethical if you ask me. Yet Pro is right - we ARE capitalists. And as capitalists, we like to pay as little money as possible for what we want, be it clothes from companies who exploit workers in Taiwan, or shady restaurant owners here in the States.

Because restaurants might make dining more expensive at said restaurants to increase profits (instead of paying salaries via tips), it is in our capitalist interests to keep practices as-is. Further, Pro mentioned out-of-job employees seeking employment at other more ethical establishments. Although that sounds like a simple and good idea, he is forgetting that there are only a certain amount of jobs, and job competition could force employees to settle for lower wages. Just a thought.

Thanks for the debate, Brian, and thanks to everyone who read.