Im having beers at bar ordered wings and tipped $2 everything the bartender brings me.
Beer = $6
tip for beer $2
wings = $20ish
Tip for wings from bartender = $2
Total tips = $4
==============================
Same order from waitress/er = $26
Tip = $5.20
Now I know this is micro example but extrapolate this over several drinks with food and the difference swings the other way. The question remains tho, am I tipping correctly?
In the USA, there are only 7 US States (and Guam) which mandate that the minimum wage be paid prior to consideration of tips. All other states permit some fraction of tips to be considered as part of minimum wage, with some states limiting the employer contribution to as low as $2.13/hr.
This is indeed an absurd situation outside of those seven states, but it also means that it’s nigh impossible to avoid establishments that rely on tips to supplement wages, in the other 43 states.
With this background, I can understand why the earlier commenter views tipping as exploitative, for both the consumer and the staff. The result of either choice – boycotting places that pay less than minimum wage, or not tipping at those places – doesn’t change the fact that the staff are being underpaid, which is the root exploitative practice.
I think reasonable people can disagree on this point, on whether not tipping constitutes a secondary exploitation. Firstly, this framing places blame on individuals when the whole situation is a systemic machine of abuse. It is no different than the nebulous idea of personal responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions, when large polluters have the actual levers to make real change. Secondly – and this is an economic policy argument which I personally don’t subscribe to – it can be argued that prolonged employment while underpaid is better than no employment at all, based on the premise that the employer would close down if a boycott was successful.
But like I said, the initial exploitation is root. Everything else is collateral. Systemic abuse is fixed by systemic overhaul.
No, they cannot. Disagreement here is not reasoned, it is just another example of clever people using their cleverness to justify unreasonable prior beliefs.
You can boycott a business, and write them to express that your boycott is based on their tipping policy. That would be a reasonable strategy to support the workers.
By still giving the business owners money, knowing they pay their staff sub-minimum wages based on the convention of tipping, and then not tipping, you have not communicated any disapproval to management. You have in fact directly supported the business owner exploiting their workers, and joined that exploitation for personal benefit. That’s the opposite of supporting the worker.
Yes, but boycotting those places is justifiable. Going anyway and just not tipping is actively participating in the exploitation.