Having to tip everyone in USA

[sceptic]

QUOTE (csdenmark @ Apr 4 2006, 12:30 PM)

Denmark is for danes. If you want to live here, interested in learning our values with intentions to adopt them - then you are welcome - else not. 

 

 

wow, what a concept... how exactly does that work and how exactly is it implemented? inquiring minds want to know

 

I would imagine it is a bit like the American system. Just a shame the British Government does not adopt such a splendid model , anyone with a phone line to Tony Brown or Gordon Blair or which ever moron runs this country, please post it here, I would love a mono sylabal conversations with these two Intellectual giants, Claus come run our country for us

[asdfg2k]

I find it surprising that nobody has noted so far that the word "tip" is an acronym for "to improve performance."

 

As Matt has pointed out, anybody who has spent a fair amount of time having services performed for them by those who are incented and a fair amount of time having services performed for them by those who are not can appreciate the difference.

 

The question is how different societies have implemented (and/or changed) their systems of incentives. In the US the service industries that have been incented by gratuties will fight tooth and nail to retain those incentive systems, because, quite simply, they work well for the service provider. If they didn't, then there would be a substantial movement to have them replaced. In this thread, both concepts have been mentioned.

 

Sceptic ever so poetically noted that if everybody stopped tipping, the system of relying on gratuities for a living wage would collapse and the practice of taxing workers on a theoretical level of tips would exit along with the system.

 

Claus mentioned that the unions were in favor of replacing the system in Denmark, so the system was replaced. Why? I don't know, but I can speculate that the reason was that the system was not working well for the service providers. If it was working well, and it was replaced anyway, I would be surprised.

 

It is a fascinating conundrum, sort of like the age old saw: Who came first, the chicken or the egg? If those that leave gratuities do so, in general, in a manner that is more generous than a rigid system would generate, then the service providers would need to be fools to reject that system. At the very least, economically foolish. Can it then be said that if the service providers have rejected the system based on gratuities the patrons, in general, left gratuities that were not so generous? That is, can it be said that, in general, the patrons of establishments in societies where tipping is considered normal are, in fact, more generous than their counterparts in parts of the world where tipping is abnormal? I think that sociologically speaking, it would be hard to refute that conclusion. Certainly it is possible that factors other than pure economics are at work here. And Claus mentions one: to use a derogatory term to describe a portion of one's earnings is a powerful disincentive to continuing that system, as I'm sure it disincents the level of the gratuity.

 

Fascinating, actually.

 

With all that aside, as a consumer, I can tell you that I dramatically prefer services rendered by those who are incented with gratuities.

 

By the way, Rob F mentioned the fact that it was hard to get the check when he wanted to leave a restaurant in Europe. There are many things which are just culturally different between the US and Europe. This is one of them. In Europe the waiter is considered rude if he presents the check before it is requested. In the US, the exact opposite is true. In the US, a waiter is considered rude if the check is not brought within a very short time after it has been confirmed that the ordering is at an end. This has in Europe, not illogically, resulted in a restaurant, no matter how crowded, just not bothering the people who are finished ordering. They are left to enjoy their meal. This elongates the time that people spend occupying the table. Guess what happens? Right. The wait staff has more tables to wait on, per waiter, than they otherwise would have. This makes them even busier and makes it even more difficult to flag them down to get your check. The proper response is to understand the culture and to plan on telling your waiter when you should expect your check. Do so before you finish ordering or, at the latest, when your last coffee has been delivered to the table. Don't blame the wait staff for the system!

 

In the end, Arend has it right: When in Rome.

[han]

Echognome wrote:

 

You'll have to be specific because I lost you. When I write "I think" it means an opinion. Other than that, not sure what you find controversial. Happy to debate it

 

I didn't want to write a long post because I basically agree with all you wrote Matt (as usual). But because of the main point of your post, I couldn't help myself but react :).

 

But I'll write down a couple of quotes that I'm not willing to accept as facts. I don't mean that I disagree, but that it is not clear to me that what you say is 100% known. I'll try not to take your words out of context.

 

The reason that tax is not included in the price in the states is that sellers want you to see when they are increasing the price, not when the government is raising their costs through taxation.

 

Is this really the reason? Perhaps it is more a matter of tradition, or is it rather because Americans tend to dislike taxes. A fourth option is that the shopkeepers want to make their articles look as cheap as possible. I know that you know much more about this subject than I do, and perhaps you are right and this is an established fact.

 

A bit was discussed about minimum wage. I can tell you that this is, in itself, quite a large discussion. I can tell you that the higher the minimum wage, then the higher the minimum standard of living and the more unemployed people you have. Everything is a tradeoff.

 

As you say yourself, this is a complicated issue. Employment rate is influenced by many different issues, and this is one of them. I think you make it seem simpler than it is in this quote.

 

There was also a bit of a political economy discussion about socialism versus capitalism. Again, a huge discussion. Can we just agree that socialism in a small, rich country like Denmark or Sweden might work fantastic, whereas in a large country like the U.S. not so well?

 

Of course, the Danes were quick to point out that Denmark is not a socialist country. Even if the socialist party was still the largest (and ruling) party in Denmark, that would not make Denmark a socialist country imo. The laws of a country like denmark have been created over a very long period, and do not change immediately as the ruling party changes.

 

Although I think I agree with you that a strong social network is more likely to be succesful in a small country, once again I am not willing to conceed this as a fact. Have there been any countries the size of the US that have had a stable democratic government and are "socialist"? (Perhaps we shouldn't use this term. I think what you meant is a capitalism-based economy with a much stronger social network than the US. I'm sure that you can formulate this much better than I can)

 

I don't think that there ever was such a country, so perhaps we shouldn't agree so easily.

 

You see what you did Matt? You made me write a far-too-long post about things I know nothing about! You should just ignore my foolish comments and not ask for clarifications.

[mike777]

"The reason that tax is not included in the price in the states is that sellers want you to see when they are increasing the price, not when the government is raising their costs through taxation.

 

Is this really the reason? Perhaps it is more a matter of tradition, or is it rather because Americans tend to dislike taxes. A fourth option is that the shopkeepers want to make their articles look as cheap as possible. I know that you know much more about this subject than I do, and perhaps you are right and this is an established fact."

 

 

1) We want to make the price of the product clear from the tax on the product. Why?

2) If the product is too high priced we will stay home or buy from another company.

3) If the tax is too high we will not buy and stay home or move to a lower tax country, county, city, village, etc. Only the very poor who cannot leave will be left and the very rich can move very fast.

4) If you combine the price then confusion reigns and we are not sure if we can blame the company or the country for the high price.

5) Yes!!!!!! shopkeepers want to make the article look as cheap as possible and YES!!!! Americans hate taxes......but so do BEATLES (See TAXMAN SONG) for those that are young. :)

6) Yes Americans hate Socalism and et. all but we want more for our family from goverment, yes this is conflicting and confusing :). See 50-50 split in politics for further info.

[csdenmark]

There are several reasons why the system was stopped in Denmark. The most important is education. For waiters it is something like this we have:

 

50% skilled persons

25% youngsters, students

25% unskilled

 

We think that waiters must be able to serve well, to advise of healthy food, food from different countries, correct wine etc. You may say this is the upper end of service concept. Yes - Denmark is a high wage country unable to compete for anything in low wage area.

 

For taxi drivers not so much education but they have tests and area licenses.

 

The stop had also something to do with fight of black economy. As I mentioned earlier these areas are those where most crime are nourised so I think more countries than Denmark ought to do something serious to get rid of it. Whether a waiter bow a bit deeper to you is of little importance.

 

I have tried to raise the question why those in favour of tipping seems not to be ready to discuss the principles in general within the whole service sector. Service is an important issue everywhere: Police, service helpers, public servants, train-staff, postal service etc. We have no tipping system for those either. Have you?

[Sigi_BC84]

Have there been any countries the size of the US that have had a stable democratic government and are "socialist"? (Perhaps we shouldn't use this term. I think what you meant is a capitalism-based economy with a much stronger social network than the US. I'm sure that you can formulate this much better than I can)

I think the proper term for this is "social market economy" -- unfortunately I'm not so sure anymore if it's a viable concept (financially).

 

--Sigi

[pigpenz]

I almost responded in ire to csdenmark, but I'll assume we're being trolled instead.

 

Two demerits to whoever started this contention ;)

ooops...Rain started....csdenmark only responded.

 

Lots of times i would rather tip the sommelier(spelling?) for a fine choice of a wine than the waiter who serves the food....at least I have my priorities right :)

[asdfg2k]

Claus, there is a pretty big difference between servers and the other service professions you mentioned. A large majority of those who go out to eat do so with the intention of enjoying themselves, not just procuring sustenance. Not so when one asks a county clerk for a form, or even a policeman for directions. Hence, it is usually desirable as part of the experience to have a server that is pleasant and attentive. The gratuity system is tailor-made to reward those who excel at providing a pleasant and an enjoyable experience for the customer.

 

Without it, you end up with a general ratcheting down of friendliness and a general lessening of enjoyment. Hardly something that *I* would choose, if given the choice.

 

You keep implying that the server position is one that requires professionalism. I'd give up professionalism in a heartbeat to replace it with joy and enthusiasm. I've experienced both and I can tell you that my own experience is far more enjoyable with the latter than the former.

[csdenmark]

Claus, there is a pretty big difference between servers and the other service professions you mentioned.  A large majority of those who go out to eat do so with the intention of enjoying themselves, not just procuring sustenance.  Not so when one asks a county clerk for a form, or even a policeman for directions.  Hence, it is usually desirable as part of the experience to have a server that is pleasant and attentive.  The gratuity system is tailor-made to reward those who excel at providing a pleasant and an enjoyable experience for the customer.

 

Without it, you end up with a general ratcheting down of friendliness and a general lessening of enjoyment.  Hardly something that *I* would choose, if given the choice. 

 

You keep implying that the server position is one that requires professionalism.  I'd give up professionalism in a heartbeat to replace it with joy and enthusiasm.  I've experienced both and I can tell you that my own experience is far more enjoyable with the latter than the former.

hmmmm ...... you tend to prove my initial statement correct!

[Echognome]

You see what you did Matt? You made me write a far-too-long post about things I know nothing about! You should just ignore my foolish comments and not ask for clarifications.

Nah, I probably state things that are not "fact" but rather "opinion" or my understanding of why things the way they are.

 

I guess I could have given full disclosure by prefacing with "the way I understand things..."

 

:(

[pclayton]

What a joke. What started as an interesting thread on 'tipping' has morphed into a debate on socialism.

 

Tipping is just customary over here. I have no idea how it started, and love it when I feel as though a service worker hustles, and I will reward it commenserately, whether is be a waitress, a bellhop, a valet or whatever.

 

Tipping is not to boost the salaries of some of our lower paid workers. Is it arbitrary? Sure, but a lot of things are. Does the breakfast waitress earn more than a waiter at Morton's? I'll bet there's a lot of times she makes 10 times less for the same effort.

 

Read the Bill of Rights. Tell me where it says anyone is entitled to a fair wage.

 

The 'living wage' is a concept invented by labor unions to increase the floor of the wages for menial labor, so that blue collar wages go up as well. Social experiments that have been done in Santa Monica and LA (in cases) have been failures.

 

No one 'deserves' a wage, anymore than anyone 'deserves' a job. If you don't want the job, there's usually someone right behind you who wants the opportunity.

[csdenmark]

Read the Bill of Rights. Tell me where it says anyone is entitled to a fair wage.

 

Here: International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

 

Article 7

The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work which ensure, in particular:

(a) Remuneration which provides all workers, as a minimum, with:

(i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any kind, in particular women being guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those enjoyed by men, with equal pay for equal work;

(ii) A decent living for themselves and their families in accordance with the provisions of the present Covenant;

 

() Safe and healthy working conditions;

© Equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted in his employment to an appropriate higher level, subject to no considerations other than those of seniority and competence;

 

(d ) Rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay, as well as remuneration for public holidays

[mike777]

"() Safe and healthy working conditions; "

 

 

BTW are those Danish cartoonist in hiding or are they safe? Do Danish citizens trust their government to protect them or are they scared because they have too small an army?

 

I am asking because we get mixed reports in our Media. Do the Danes feel safe or are citizens going into hiding?

[asdfg2k]

Claus, humor me, what specific statement are you referencing?

[pclayton]

Read the Bill of Rights. Tell me where it says anyone is entitled to a fair wage.

 

Here: International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

 

Article 7

The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work which ensure, in particular:

(a) Remuneration which provides all workers, as a minimum, with:

(i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any kind, in particular women being guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those enjoyed by men, with equal pay for equal work;

(ii) A decent living for themselves and their families in accordance with the provisions of the present Covenant;

 

() Safe and healthy working conditions;

© Equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted in his employment to an appropriate higher level, subject to no considerations other than those of seniority and competence;

 

(d ) Rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay, as well as remuneration for public holidays

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/...ocs/billeng.htm

 

Claus, the Bill of Rights is part of the U.S. Constitution. Your link is to a UN document.

 

Since the thread is entitled, "Having to tip everyone in USA" I think its only appropriate that the discussion be focused on US policies, laws and customs.

[csdenmark]

Claus, the Bill of Rights is part of the U.S. Constitution. Your link is to a UN document.

 

Since the thread is entitled, "Having to tip everyone in USA" I think its only appropriate that the discussion be focused on US policies, laws and customs.

It is so that human rights conventions are binding prescriptions to all memberstates of the UN. The way those obligations are implemented in USA I don't know.

 

But you have the point - in this thread we mostly concentrate about blaming USA. I know many americans feels embarrassed because USA is always to be blamed. So if you want it that way - USA need to abandon the UN if they want rightfully to get rid of their obligations.

 

I think this topic is implemented in some way in US legislation. Somebody may know where and how. USA has no opt out of human right conventions. Your country must apply to all.

 

I really think you ought to be happy that USA need to stay as a civilized nation - no matter who is in charge of your country.

[csdenmark]

Claus, humor me, what specific statement are you referencing?

Not so funny - at least not for those persons we talk about.

 

The point is - unless you tip for ALL kind of good service - dentist, lawyer, bus-driver, police etc. we no longer talk about service. Then we instead talk a poverty and charity, maybe even promotion of crime.

[jdonn]

The point is - unless you tip for ALL kind of good service - dentist, lawyer, bus-driver, police etc. we no longer talk about service. Then we instead talk a poverty and charity, maybe even promotion of crime.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your statement. Let me elaborate.

 

There are two common characteristics that I can see between the jobs that generally receive tips in the USA, such as:

 

waiters/waitresses

taxi drivers

bellhops

barbers

 

One is that the service they provide (unlike police officers and bus drivers) is inherently social in nature. The other, and the point I think people have been overlooking is that (unlike dentists and lawyers) you have little or no control over who is going to be your waiter or taxi drivers on any particular occasion (I admit that with barbers this is somewhat untrue, for which I have no explanation). You go to a restaurant because you are interested in the food or perhaps the atmosphere, not because of the waiter who will be serving you. The way you reward a dentist or lawyer for good service is by retaining that person's services the next time, which is impractical with waiters and taxi drivers, so tipping is the only convenient way that their good service can be rewarded.

 

Two closing remarks. The first is that I find tipping to be a more accurate pricing structure. You pay more for something that was good, and less for something that was bad, a concept that I don't think should be objectionable, though obviously to some people it is.

 

The other is that as any economist will tell you, variety is a good thing. Imagine that the entire world forbid tipping. The people in favor of that approach would be happy, the people against it would not. But by some countries forbidding tipping and some allowing it, everyone can live in the situation they prefer most. Variety is inherently Pareto improving (meaning it makes some people better off without leaving any worse off) from the perspective of the consumer, so even if one system could be proven best it would make sense for some countries to use either system. Note that the point about variety also applies to the fact that some jobs receive tips and others don't. If you want a job where you get a small salary and tips to compensate, be a waiter. If you want a job with a larger fixed salary and no tips, be a lawyer.

[csdenmark]

"() Safe and healthy working conditions; "

 

 

BTW are those Danish cartoonist in hiding or are they safe?  Do Danish citizens trust their government to protect them or are they scared because they have too small an army?

 

I am asking because we get mixed reports in our Media. Do the Danes feel safe or are citizens going in hiding?

The cartoonists are protected by the police.

 

The danish army and all army's in Europe has no role to play in civilian society.

 

We all know the americans are handicapped regarding informations. Your language skills are poor and your media's covers nearly nothing from outside USA. Those problems they suffer in all big countries. Small countries are much dependent of what happens elsewhere. Danish economy is very much dependent of economy in Germany, England, Sweden, Italy, Poland, China. We therefore all need to have some knowledge of their agenda.

 

Regarding cartoons the american record is also very poor. The american media's have chosen to remain silent - rumours say self-censorship. We are very disappointed of the international support of freedom of speech. 2-3 nations have expressed strong support: Norway and Holland and as I remember Hungary too.

 

All else have paid lips to freedom of speech with a but The little word but is what the fundamentalists were heading for. They have demanded the right to decide the limits. Democratic nations let the judicial system decide.

 

Now the public rise in muslim nations has ended we now deal with the problems here. The egyptian ambassador who was the person incouraging and organizing the subversive actions has been removed to South Africa. It is still a bit unclear what will happen to 2 imams, one danish citizen and 1 lived in Denmark 22 years. 1 of them has been dismissed as spokeperson for muslim community in Denmark. It is likely that new legislation to come about imams coming from abroad.

 

This started in the danish right-wing newspaper Jyllands-Posten. They wanted to test freedom of expression. Whether ordinary standards were to be applied everywhere or special rules for religious affiliations.

 

http://www.jp.dk/img/gfx_logo_PageLogo.gif

This is a link to Jyllands-Posten summary in english incl. Mohammed affair

[Sigi_BC84]

Two closing remarks. The first is that I find tipping to be a more accurate pricing structure. You pay more for something that was good, and less for something that was bad, a concept that I don't think should be objectionable, though obviously to some people it is.

Tipping per se is not a bad thing, but the base wage should be high enough so that even with low tips you're receiving fair money for your work.

 

In Germany it is considered polite to tip if the service was good, but not mandatory. I usually tip or else have a bad conscience most of the time. You also tip the barber, taxi driver and the pizza guy.

 

Only, all these people already receive a wage which is worth their time and effort, so they are not at the mercy of the customer and at least in principle are free to change their employer if they are not content with their wage (NB they are not free to change their customer). Basically it's the same argument that you are making (freedom of choice or lack thereof), only applied to the waiter not the customer.

 

--Sigi

[mike777]

"Tipping per se is not a bad thing, but the base wage should be high enough so that even with low tips you're receiving fair money for your work."

 

Why not just pay them enough so there are no poor people? It seems you think the customer should not decide what is fair but someone else should? Who?

 

And who decides what is a fair wage? Keep in mind this is money coming out of my pocket not yours! Are you saying my kids should go hungry as you reach into my pocket?

[csdenmark]

The point is - unless you tip for ALL kind of good service - dentist, lawyer, bus-driver, police etc. we no longer talk about service. Then we instead talk a poverty and charity, maybe even promotion of crime.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your statement. Let me elaborate.

 

There are two common characteristics that I can see between the jobs that generally receive tips in the USA, such as:

 

waiters/waitresses

taxi drivers

bellhops

barbers

 

One is that the service they provide (unlike police officers and bus drivers) is inherently social in nature. The other, and the point I think people have been overlooking is that (unlike dentists and lawyers) you have little or no control over who is going to be your waiter or taxi drivers on any particular occasion (I admit that with barbers this is somewhat untrue, for which I have no explanation). You go to a restaurant because you are interested in the food or perhaps the atmosphere, not because of the waiter who will be serving you. The way you reward a dentist or lawyer for good service is by retaining that person's services the next time, which is impractical with waiters and taxi drivers, so tipping is the only convenient way that their good service can be rewarded.

 

Two closing remarks. The first is that I find tipping to be a more accurate pricing structure. You pay more for something that was good, and less for something that was bad, a concept that I don't think should be objectionable, though obviously to some people it is.

 

The other is that as any economist will tell you, variety is a good thing. Imagine that the entire world forbid tipping. The people in favor of that approach would be happy, the people against it would not. But by some countries forbidding tipping and some allowing it, everyone can live in the situation they prefer most. Variety is inherently Pareto improving (meaning it makes some people better off without leaving any worse off) from the perspective of the consumer, so even if one system could be proven best it would make sense for some countries to use either system. Note that the point about variety also applies to the fact that some jobs receive tips and others don't. If you want a job where you get a small salary and tips to compensate, be a waiter. If you want a job with a larger fixed salary and no tips, be a lawyer.

My argument is NOT against incentive salary systems. Those are used in industrial company's but they are on their way out, slowly.

 

In sale, fx. real estate, you have a contract for a basic salary + a percentage. That is certainly not begging. That is value for money.

 

The problem is if you need extra-money for value to be able to handle your private economy. If it is the customer who decides the price - then you need to beg your customer, deep bow or whatever.

 

As I have explained earlier we don't like that. We have abandoned 'value for extra-money' and replaced it by 'extra-value for money'. That principle is fair to all.

[Sigi_BC84]

"Tipping per se is not a bad thing, but the base wage should be high enough so that even with low tips you're receiving fair money for your work."

 

Why not just pay them enough so there are no poor people? It seems you think the customer should not decide what is fair but someone else should? Who?

 

And who decides what is a fair wage? Keep in mind this is money coming out of my pocket not yours! Are you saying my kids should go hungry as you reach into my pocket?

You still decide who you give your money to. The manager who runs the restaurant makes the prices and if they're too high he'll run out of customers. This is something the personnel has no influence over but at least they get their wage as long as they're working there.

 

If you were serious about what you are proposing you'd would have to accept freely negotiable prices for just about everything (bazaar style). I think that's a bit inconvenient, especially at the supermarket...

 

--Sigi

[asdfg2k]

We have abandoned 'value for extra-money' and replaced it by 'extra-value for money'.

You might think you have, but in fact, you have not. More like extra-money for less value. It has been amply demonstrated to me that those who are in the business of providing a social/personal experience to their customers provide, in general, a better experience for the customer if their compensation is based in large part on gratuities. (BTW, barbers and hairstylists are included in this group because the action is considered intensely personal - many movies and TV shows make this point abundantly clear).

 

You may enjoy going to a restaurant where the waiter is professional, yet not enjoyable. Most don't. Or at least they enjoy it less. Unless or until you have experienced the difference, you really can't judge.

 

This is why policemen and the like are not tipped. It is not part of their job to make the person they are dealing with feel good so that they will come back. It is their job to have the person want to come back based solely on their professional services. The theory is that while they certainly don't want to make the customer mad by being unkind, whether the service they perform is satisfactory or not does not depend on the social interaction.

 

You keep saying that the services being performed by the wait staff are more professional now that you have abandoned the system of gratuities. Can you elaborate as to what they do now that they didn't do before? In my view, other than perhaps the sommelier at an upscale restaurant, I find it hard to believe that being a waiter requires professional skills. I don't mean to denigrate waiters by that comment. They can certainly act professionally and many work very, very hard for their compensation, but there is very little formal training required when compared to a police officer.

[sceptic]

I do not consider tipping as any form of charity or begging, if the money was going into the pocket of the woman serving me, then, I would happily tip when I am happy with the service received.

 

Things to consider are shared or pooled tips, I find this personally repugnant and distasteful (a tip is for an individual not a team effort and certainly not for the managers or owners of a restaraunt)

 

Would you tip someone that was a delight to deal with but served up crap food?

the food was paid at a known cost, the service is extra and voluntry

 

wouldyou tip a hairdresser that made you look like a convict?

 

No, so tipping in the US is discretionary or mandatory?

 

Also some of the restaraunts that I frequent in the UK, have service charge included 10 or 15% this is pooled money and I don't particulaly agree with it, but I will still tip a good waitress even if a service charge is included.

 

if someone is paid such crap wages (in the UK, there are benefits that boost their wages to a decent living standard, this of course could be debated) so why do they need to relay on tips (which are taxed in the UK)

 

In America I assume wages are so low because you are able to exploit the poor and needy or illegal imigrants that are only trying to get a better life and they have to rely on tips