Posted on 12/30/2005 10:50:38 AM PST by George14
We have a winner, and only a few posts into it!
Acceptance of government set prices is a sure sign that a free society is well on it's way to being totally "unfree".
The state government pays the waiters in Washington?
And so are the big chain restaurants where employees don't fare nearly as well.
LOVE IT!!!!, but you may owe me a new monitor!
I remember an episode of "Third Rock From the Sun" where Dr. Cohen (an extraterrestial) put a big stack of dollar bills on the table before ordering and told the waiter that any screw up on the waiters part would result in his removing money from the "tip" stack as the evening progressed. Would that work?
That being said, when I open my place, line cooks will make $15/hr, prep cooks will start at$9/hr, front will make $13/hr. That's much higher than prevailing local rates. It will attract and keep folks that will be loyal to MY vision of my food. Lots of chefs have a great vision, they just can't implement it. I expect to eventually have a large margin, just like Chef Trotter.
I don't know what I'll do about tips. Probably pool them, and use them for a yearly bonus, like Trotter does.
When I've been tipped as a kitchen manager, and it does sometimes happen with special events, my tips have been >$500, and most of that was tipped down to everyone in the kitchen, even the pearl diver.
/johnny
Every night, 10 men met at a restaurant for dinner. At the end of the meal, the bill would arrive. They owed $100 for the food that they shared. Every night they lined up in the same order at the cash register.
The first four men paid nothing at all.
The fifth, grumbling about the unfairness of the situation, paid $1.
The sixth man, feeling very generous, paid $3.
The next three men paid $7, $12 and $18, respectively.
The last man was required to pay the remaining balance, $59. He realized that he was forced to pay for not only his own meal but also the unpaid balance left by the first five men.
The 10 men were quite settled into their routine when the restaurant threw them into chaos by announcing that it was cutting its prices. Now dinner for the 10 men would only cost $80.
This clearly would not affect the first four men. They still ate free.
The fifth and sixth men both claimed their piece of the $20 right away. The fifth decided to forgo his $1 contribution.
The sixth pitched in $2.
The seventh man deducted $2 from his usual payment and paid $5.
The eighth man paid $9.
The ninth man paid $12.
Leaving the last man with a bill of $52.
Outside of the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings, and angry outbursts began to erupt. The sixth man yelled, "I only got $1 out of the $20, and he got $7, "pointing at the last man. The fifth man joined in. "Yeah! I only got $1 too. It is unfair that he got seven times more than me.” The seventh man cried, "Why should he get $7 back when I only got $2?” The first four men followed the lead of the others: "We didn't get any of the $20. Where is our share?"
The nine men formed an outraged mob, surrounding the 10th man. The nine angry men carried the 10th man up to the top of a hill and lynched him. The next night, the nine remaining men met at the restaurant for dinner. But when the bill came, there was no one to pay it.
If you don't understand the Democrats' version of tax cuts (and you are not alone), this will help explain it for you:
50,000 people go to a baseball game, but the game was rained out. A refund was then due.
The team was about to mail refunds when the Congressional Democrats stopped them and suggested that they send out refund amounts based on the Democrat National Committee's interpretation of fairness. After all, if the refunds were made based on the price each person paid for the tickets, most of the money would go to the ticket holders of the most expensive tickets. That would be unconscionable.
The DNC plan says:
People in the $10 seats will get back $15, because they have less money to spend. Call it an "Earned" Income Ticket Credit. Persons "earn" it by demonstrating little ambition, few skills and poor work habits, thus keeping them at entry-level wages.
People in the $25 seats will get back $25, because that's only fair.
People in the $50 seats will get back $1, because they already make a lot of money and don't need a refund. If they can afford a $50 ticket, then they must not be paying enough taxes.
People in the $75 luxury seats will have to pay another $50, because they have way too much to spend.
The people driving by the stadium who couldn't afford to watch the game will get $10 each, even though they didn't pay anything in, because they need the most help.
Now do you understand? If not, contact Representative Richard Gephardt or Senator Tom Daschle for assistance.
A few weeks ago, the Internal Revenue Service released data on tax year 2003. They show that the top 1 percent of taxpayers, ranked by adjusted gross income, paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes that year. The top 5 percent paid 54.4 percent, the top 10 percent paid 65.8 percent, and the top quarter of taxpayers paid 83.9 percent.
I've never heard of a restaurant where the waiters didn't tip out the runners, busboys, and bar
I know the story, six years ago you could not buy a cup of coffee in Most of Russia - Vodka yes - Coffee no
Sorry I was unclear. No, the state has some rule that says that servers are paid whatever minimum wage is. That's why I don't feel as bad for rewarding bad service with less of a tip. It's also not fair to the dishwashers and cooks who don't make tips. Plus, Washington has a new system of somehow tying the minimum wage to inflation, so it gets raised every couple of years (don't even let me get started on THAT).
Whenever I feel strapped for cash, I have contemplated getting a part-time evening job waitressing. My husband cooks at a popular Italian restaurant (not a chain) and some nights the servers make $150+ in tips alone on a busy weekend evening. That's for maybe a 6 hour shift- then they make almost $8 an hour in base pay. I never do it, but I do seriously consider it.
Now, how much does a hamburger cost there?
Didn't say I was necessarily a big fan. (See post 50.) I would say most burger and fries combos (not fast food) run *on average* between $6 and $8 at most establishments. Usually closer to $6 if it's just a cheeseburger and more if it has added items (avocados, bacon, etc.) The owners just pay the other employees less to make up for it- or work the servers harder and hire less of them. The average pay for a cook has not really gone up in the area in the last 11 years, despite the fact that the minimum wage (what servers make) has been raised from 4.25 to 7 something (sorry I can't remember the exact number) since then. It used to be that an entry level cook made about $8 an hour- and that's about what they still get.
Someone once told me that patrons who boast of being big tippers (ie "demonstrate their opinion that they value what is being done for them") are the worst tippers in the world.
I've worked tables, and nothing was worse than doing your job and being stiffed for a gratuity afterward. Kinda makes one sour pretty quickly and you only do the minimum and hope for the best - and feel kind of bad afterward when you DO the minimum and they then hit you pretty well.
One day a couple tipped me in advance and I made sure I paid them a bit of extra attention while they were there. I mentioned, at the end of their meal, that what they did was pretty unusual and they asked me what my thoughts were when they tipped me and then explained what I did in my first posting. It felt good, and was a bit humbling, to be trusted to do what was right for what I received; rather than performing a service and hoping I didn't get stiffed.
I've since tried to do the same when I'm in a 'tipping situation', have only been disappointed once, and have hopefully spread the practice - not ONE 'tippee' has initally failed to ask why I'm doing it, and I've told them what that couple told me.
Most waitresses I know would be insulted if you tipped them upfront. You might as well be throwing a bone.
Well then, that would be their loss.
Ummmmm....Okay.
Finding another job is not going stop these crimes. What many of you are failing to realize is that while you may think you're giving a worker a tip, the businesses of this nation are being allowed to lower the employee's wages because you gave him a tip. The result of allowing business owners an ability to lower the wages of employees whom receive tips is that the employer saves money and thus increases his own income. Businesses are being allowed to increase their own income because you and others like you chose to give their worker a tip. So when you give a waiter a $20 tip, what you are really doing is giving the business owner a $20 tip. You see, while the waiter keeps the $20 you gave him our government has allowed the employer to reduce his wages by $20. The tip credit which was passed back in the 1960' has allowed businesses to profit themselves from the tips customer's give their employees.
To put it truthfully, our government has allowed business owners an ability to steal the finacial benefits of the tips our public presents. If you cannot see a problem with our governmant passing laws which blatantly allow and reward stealing people's personal property for no reason other than greed, then our country is in sad shape. You see, if business owners need more income for themselves, they have every right and ability to simply charge more for their services. There is no reason for allowing businesses to steal the finacial benefits of their employee's tips to make a living. The only reason the tip credit was passed was because restaurant owners wanted to be able to steal the financial benefits of the consumer's tip so they can become rich.
Why are you in debate over what you are going to do with your waiter's tips? Tips are not your property. Let me explain what federal laws say about tips and you the owner deciding what you are going to do with them. Tipped employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act states that the law forbids any arrangement between the employer and the employee whereby any part of the tip received becomes the property of the employer. You can't use your waiter's tips for a yearly bonus because customer aren't giving tips so you can use them however you want. Did anyone ever tell you that stealing other's property is both immoral, illegal and unconstitutional. Hello.........
The law is being misused alright. The law states that an employer can reduce the wages of an employee who receives tips if, and only if, all tips received by the employee are retained by the employee. However, what this law actually is allowing is for employers to prevent their tipped employees from retaining their tips. The word "retain" is defined as to keep in possession or use and yet employers are being allowed to use their employee's tips to reduce the employee's wages. There is no way for an employeee to retain his tips when his employer is allowed to offset those tips against his hourly wages. You see, when an employee receives $20 in tips the tip credit law allows the employer to reduce the employee's wages by $20 thus nulifying the financial benefits of the $20 tip. If the employee doesn't receive a $20 tip his employer must pay him $41.20 for the day, 8 hours times $5.15 an hour. If the employee receives a $20 tip, his employer is allowed to pay him $21.20 for that eight hours of work, $41.20 minus a $20 tip credit. What this means is that our federal government has passed a bill which allows business owners an ability to prevent the tipped worker from actually retaining his tips even though they have included a provision specifically stating that this law can only be utilized if and only if all tips received by the employee are retained by the employee. An employee cannot retain his tips when his employer is reducing his wages because of those tips.
You see, in the above scenario the waiter who is given a $20 tip will not retain any of his tip for he will go home with the same earnings he would have had the customer not tipped him at all. If the customer had not tipped him his employer would have had to have paid him $41.20, the regular minimum wage. When a customer tips him $20, he will still go hime with $41.20 in his pocket because his employer was allowed to prevent him from actually retaining his tips by a law that specifically states all tips received by the employee must be retained by the employee.
What this law actually states is that employers may retain their employee's tips as long as they don't retain their employee's tips.
The reason many businesses are controlling their employee's tips as if they are the business's property is because our federal government refuses to enforce the laws our country has enacted concerning tips. When a business takes a server's tips and redistributes them back to the server and other employees, that tip money is not income to the restaurant like some have suggested. It is instead stolen money which understandably no laws would address.
When employers steal their server's tips and redistribute them back to the server and other employees the tips must be treated as if they have not been stolen because there are no laws or guidelines addressing how stolen tips must be reported and taxed. Servers who receive tips are required by law to pay the taxes on them, so if an employer is intent on stealing part of the server's tips, the server must still pay the taxes on them.
Our laws state that tips are the sole property of the tipped employee. The question that has appeared to be a loophole in this simple law is, who exactly is the tipped employee. Businesses have been successful in getting judges to rule that anyone who receives a share of the tips customer's present is considered by law a tipped employee and as such employers may share the customers tip with anyone who is considered a tipped employee. The problem with such logic is that it errantly allows the business owner to determine who a tipped employee is when it is legally the right of the customer to determine who a tipped employee is. You see, that is why many businesses are mandating that their employees must pool tips. When mandatory tip pooling is allowed, please note that not every state allows employers to require tip pooling, instead of the customer determining who the tipped employee is, the businesses is allowed to determine who the tipped employee is. Who ever the business successfully includes in it's mandated tip pool is now considered a tipped employee according to a very suspect court ruling in the 6th circuit.
Federal laws state that a tipped employee is an employee who customarily and regularly receives at least $30 a month in tips. Because the US code has been revised so many times over the last 70 years, there is no mention left in the statute to address from who such tips must be received. It appears that at one time the US statutes must have included the fact that a tipped employee is an employee who customarily and regularly receives tips from customer's, for federal regulations clearly explain that a tip is a sum presented by a "customer" as a gift or gratuity in recognition of some service performed for him. CFR 531.52
Business owners, on the other hand, want to believe that a tip is a sum presented by a business who has a policy of tip pooling so that the business can determine who the tipped employee actually is. Why would businesses want to determine who the tipped employee is? Our government has passed a bill, the tip credit, which allows business owners an ability to pay tipped employees wages much lower than the federal minimum wage most businesses are required to pay their employees. Customers tend to be too selective in the eyes of business owners. Why should businesses settle for paying just their servers wages as low as $2.12 an hour when they could be paying all their employee's $2.12 an hour? A policy of employer required tip pooling allows businesses to redirect the customer's tips to as many employees as the business can in an effort to have these other workers considered tipped employees where the business will also be allowed to pay these workers wages as low as $2.13 an hour.
The reason I an going into such detail on this matter is because I am hopeful that this insight will eventually be realized by the US Department of Labor. It is their responsibility to interpret and enforce the labor laws of this country, however they have been utterly confused over the issue of who actually is a tipped employee. They have errantly attempted to compile a list of occupations that qualify as tipped employees, clearly missing sight of the fact that it is the customer's sole right to determine who a tipped employee actually is. Businesses have been unrelenting in their attempt to force the Department of Labor into overstepping their authority to the point of stripping our public of their constitutional right to determine for themselves who the tipped employee should be viewed as. As a result the Department of Labor is currently giving into the interests of business owners and allowing businesses to determine who the tipped employee actually is. As a result many employees who do not customarily and regularly receive tips from customers are being errantly considered tip employees all so the business can pay these non-tipped workers $2.13 an hour and profit from a ridiculous excuse of a loophole.
You see the presumed loophole is that since tips are legally defined as the property of the tipped employee, businesses can simply have the Department of Labor interpret that all the employees included in their tip pool scheme are tipped employees and thus the business is doing nothing illegal by simply distributing the tips to their rightful owner. Since tips are defined as the legal property of the tipped employee there can be nothing wrong with employers distributing the customer's tip to such tipped employees. An employer who mandates tip pooling is only distributing the money to it's rightful owner.
The problem with this presumption and the presumtion that there is a loophole in our laws that allows businesses an ability to legally steal tips from those employees who receive them from customers is that such presumptions ignore the constitutional rights of the customer. Customers have a constitutional right to liberty which in turn gives them the right to determine for themselves who should be viewed as a tipped employee and protected as the rightful owner of their tip. The Department of Labor's current position that the Department of Labor should be responsible for determining who the tipped employee is, is clearly in violation of our constitution for our constitution clearly states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
There has been no due process of law for the consumer's of this nation. There has been no justification even suggested for why the Department of labor is depriving the public of their constitutional liberty to determine for themselves who should be the recipient of their tips and legally entitled to such money. There has been no just compensation given the public for the seizure of their property, their tips. The Department of Labor has unconstitutionally deprived our citizens of their right to determine who will receive their tip by errantly insisting that it is the authority of the Department of Labor's to determine who is legally entitled to the customer's tip.
Let me reiterate. Federal regulation clearly state that tips are a sum presented by a "customer" as a gift or gratuity in recognition of some service performed for him. Tips are not a sum presented by authority of the Department of Labor. The Department of Labor has no authority to determine who businesses can give stolen tips to. Tips are the sole property of the person to whom the customer has given it. Tips do not belong to the Department of Labor that they should determine who is legally entitled to them. It is the customer's constitutional right to determine for himelf who the tipped employee is and who is legally entitled to his tip. The Department of Labor is hereby exposed as a openly corrupt department of our governemnt which is blatantly overstepping it's authority in an effort to aid and abet business owners in stealing their employee's tips.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.