Tipped Off

aem said:

his Per Se restaurant in NYC, replacing it with a European-style
service charge.

So, is this service charge going to become realistic wages
for workers, and if yes, why call it a service charge? Why not just
up the prices to accomplish the same thing? Sounds like more smoke
and mirrors to me.

nb

aem said:

The NY Times today has a column by a food writer, Steven Shaw, about
tipping. Thomas Keller has announced that he is abolishing tipping at
his Per Se restaurant in NYC, replacing it with a European-style
service charge.

Shaw discusses the several topics that from time to time are discussed
here but with the odd and unusual addition of facts.

1. "Customers believe in tipping because they think it makes economic
sense." However, dozens of studies by Cornell's School of Hotel
Administration have concluded that there is at best a weak correlation
between perceived quality of service and the amount tipped. Customers
actually tip based on whether they "like" the server, something that is
distinguishable from service.

2. Tipping is an invitation to "upselling," since overall tips
increase as the bill does.

3. Tip pooling is becoming more and more common, which guts whatever
effect tip anticipation might have had on your waiter.

4. "Indeed, there appears to be little connection between tipping and
good service."

5. Keller apparently wants to break the cycle where servers view their
jobs as transient and are willing to sacrifice longer term salary and
benefits for the quicker reward of tips and owners prefer to avoid
paying real wages to real employees. The idea is that longer term,
loyal waiters will actually perform better and make customers happier.

The full column is at NYTimes dot com, op-ed page, called "Tipped Off".

Methinks this article must assume all folks frequent an establishemnt
but once... it definitely pays to tip, and well, at a restaurant one
frequents often. Naturally if the experience is such that due to poor
service you're never going to return then why bother to tip at all, I
don't, the consumer votes with its pocketbook. There's no rule that
says poor service deserves a tip anyway.

Sheldon

Sheldon said:

Methinks this article must assume all folks frequent an establishemnt
but once... it definitely pays to tip, and well, at a restaurant one
frequents often. Naturally if the experience is such that due to poor
service you're never going to return then why bother to tip at all, I
don't, the consumer votes with its pocketbook. There's no rule that
says poor service deserves a tip anyway.

Methinks also that both the author and the restaurant owner missed the court
case in which demanding addtional "service charges" in the guise of or in
lieu of gratuities, and in the absence of additional services, was found to
be bogus and therefore unenforceable.

In article <[email hidden]>,
"pennyaline" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Sheldon said:

Methinks this article must assume all folks frequent an establishemnt
but once... it definitely pays to tip, and well, at a restaurant one
frequents often. Naturally if the experience is such that due to poor
service you're never going to return then why bother to tip at all, I
don't, the consumer votes with its pocketbook. There's no rule that
says poor service deserves a tip anyway.

Methinks also that both the author and the restaurant owner missed the court
case in which demanding addtional "service charges" in the guise of or in
lieu of gratuities, and in the absence of additional services, was found to
be bogus and therefore unenforceable.

What court case was that?

"pennyaline" <[email hidden]> wrote
in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sheldon said:

Methinks this article must assume all folks frequent an establishemnt
but once... it definitely pays to tip, and well, at a restaurant one
frequents often. Naturally if the experience is such that due to poor
service you're never going to return then why bother to tip at all, I
don't, the consumer votes with its pocketbook. There's no rule that
says poor service deserves a tip anyway.

Methinks also that both the author and the restaurant owner missed the
court
case in which demanding addtional "service charges" in the guise of or in
lieu of gratuities, and in the absence of additional services, was found
to
be bogus and therefore unenforceable.

That sounds odd. There are plenty of restaurants where it'll say on the menu
"A 12% service charge will be added for parties of 10 or more", or something
in that vein. Regardless of what "the court case" said, this is not unusual.

"Stan Horwitz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"pennyaline" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Methinks also that both the author and the restaurant owner missed the
court
case in which demanding addtional "service charges" in the guise of or in
lieu of gratuities, and in the absence of additional services, was found
to
be bogus and therefore unenforceable.

What court case was that?

I remember that one ... some guy refused to pay it and it was ruled that he
didn't have to, by law. Was only a few years back.

nancy

"Nancy Young" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Stan Horwitz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"pennyaline" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Methinks also that both the author and the restaurant owner missed the
court
case in which demanding addtional "service charges" in the guise of or
in
lieu of gratuities, and in the absence of additional services, was found
to
be bogus and therefore unenforceable.

What court case was that?

I remember that one ... some guy refused to pay it and it was ruled that
he
didn't have to, by law. Was only a few years back.

nancy

If he thinks "Waiters shouldn't do the job if restaurants can't pay a decent
wage that doesn't require tips", then he also should not patronize
restaurants. Otherwise, he's being hypocritical. If you think a business'
practices are unfair, why contribute any money at all?

"Doug Kanter" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

"Nancy Young" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I remember that one ... some guy refused to pay it and it was ruled that
he
didn't have to, by law. Was only a few years back.

Quoted message said:

If he thinks "Waiters shouldn't do the job if restaurants can't pay a
decent wage that doesn't require tips", then he also should not patronize
restaurants. Otherwise, he's being hypocritical. If you think a business'
practices are unfair, why contribute any money at all?

(laugh) Don't yell at me! I'm just saying what happened. I tip when
I eat out!

nancy

Doug replied to pennyaline:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Methinks also that both the author and the restaurant owner missed the
court case in which demanding addtional "service charges" in the guise of
or in lieu of gratuities, and in the absence of additional services, was
found to be bogus and therefore unenforceable.

That sounds odd. There are plenty of restaurants where it'll say on the
menu "A 12% service charge will be added for parties of 10 or more", or
something in that vein. Regardless of what "the court case" said, this is
not unusual.

First, I have to chuckle at pennyaline's use of precise legal terminology.
I don't know how many times Daniel Webster won in court by pointing at his
opposition and thundering out a scathing "BOGUS!" :-)

Doug, I think I know what she's talking about:

www.gothamist.com/archives/2004/09/15/the_tipping_point.php

"In a blow to restaurant owners and servers in particular, prosecutors
upstate ruled that a diner could not be forced to pay a tip - even if the
restaurant says it's mandatory."

Of course, that's just ONE case in ONE municipal court. There's no
requirement for rigid consistency between judicial venues in cases like
that; a similar case could easily go the other way in some other city.

Moreover, Thomas Keller may be well aware of that case, but he might have
some reason to believe his service charge *will* be enforceable. The quoted
portion doesn't say how the service charge is applied: It might differ
significantly enough from customary tipping practices that the court would
reasonably view it as an entirely different animal altogether. For example,
if the service charge doesn't depend on the cost of the meal, but is a flat
fee applied to each diner, then I can see some legitimacy to the claim that
the service fee differs significantly from a tip. Maybe even if the flat fee
were upped for parties requiring the services of a sommelier -- the
restaurant is providing an additional service, so it applies an additional
fee. But since I don't know what it meant by a "European-style service
charge," that's conjecture on my part. Any of you Europeans want to chime in
here and explain how service charges are applied in your part of the world?

Bob

"Nancy Young" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Doug Kanter" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

"Nancy Young" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I remember that one ... some guy refused to pay it and it was ruled that
he
didn't have to, by law. Was only a few years back.

Quoted message said:

If he thinks "Waiters shouldn't do the job if restaurants can't pay a
decent wage that doesn't require tips", then he also should not patronize
restaurants. Otherwise, he's being hypocritical. If you think a business'
practices are unfair, why contribute any money at all?

(laugh) Don't yell at me! I'm just saying what happened. I tip when
I eat out!

nancy

I'm not yelling. I'm just pointing out how hypocritical it is for the guy
who refused to pay the upcharge.

"Bob" <virtualgoth@die_spammer.biz> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Doug replied to pennyaline:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Methinks also that both the author and the restaurant owner missed the
court case in which demanding addtional "service charges" in the guise
of
or in lieu of gratuities, and in the absence of additional services, was
found to be bogus and therefore unenforceable.

That sounds odd. There are plenty of restaurants where it'll say on the
menu "A 12% service charge will be added for parties of 10 or more", or
something in that vein. Regardless of what "the court case" said, this is
not unusual.

First, I have to chuckle at pennyaline's use of precise legal terminology.
I don't know how many times Daniel Webster won in court by pointing at his
opposition and thundering out a scathing "BOGUS!" :-)

Doug, I think I know what she's talking about:

I wasn't saying it didn't happen - just that it seems odd. With little or no
knowledge of the financials of a certain business, or the physical effort
involved in running it, some people are willing to make value judgements,
and complain about pricing structures. Ask that guy in the article if it's
OK to charge money for installing windows, and he'd probably say "Of
course". But, pay a labor charge for food delivery? Never.

Then, there are people like the one on that web page who said this:
"As for the primadonnas who wait tables for a day job, hey - time to grow
up. Plenty of us creative types work a "real" job and still find time to do
our thing."

She has apparently never seen a truly professional waiter who made a
difference in how pleasant the meal was. Admittedly, they're few and far
between.

Speaking of bad restaurant policies, I'd like to know who started the "guys"
habit: "Hi....can I bring you guys something to drink?" Or, "How are you
guys doing tonight?" This, spoken to a group consisting of 3 women and 1
man. A friend of mine is rounding up financing for a restaurant. She says
her #1 rule will be that if the word "guys" is uttered by a waiter/waitress,
that person will be given the choice of dishwashing duty, or termination. I
love it.

Doug Kanter said:

"pennyaline" <[email hidden]> wrote
in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sheldon said:

Methinks this article must assume all folks frequent an establishemnt
but once... it definitely pays to tip, and well, at a restaurant one
frequents often. Naturally if the experience is such that due to poor
service you're never going to return then why bother to tip at all, I
don't, the consumer votes with its pocketbook. There's no rule that
says poor service deserves a tip anyway.

Methinks also that both the author and the restaurant owner missed the
court
case in which demanding addtional "service charges" in the guise of or in
lieu of gratuities, and in the absence of additional services, was found
to
be bogus and therefore unenforceable.

That sounds odd. There are plenty of restaurants where it'll say on the menu
"A 12% service charge will be added for parties of 10 or more", or something
in that vein. Regardless of what "the court case" said, this is not unusual.

Nothing odd. Doesn't matter what it says on a menu, a menu is not a
legal instrument. Many restaurants post signs/notices saying "Not
Responsible For Personal Property (per management)", but by law they
are responsible, not only for your property but they're responsible for
you bodily as well (regardless the presumptuousness of management), in
NYC businesses are prohibited by law from posting such signs. A
business is an "invitee", ergo they are responsible. Btw, a restaurant
patron is not required to read a menu, in fact they are not required to
know how to read. In order to enforce a 12% service charge the
business must inform *verbally* _prior to_ taking an order, where upon
with _acceptance_ a legal contract (verbal) is entered into... posting
a private sign/notice (especially one contrary to law) hoping it will
be read and comprehended does not a legal contract make. Even though
the vast majority of patrons will note the sign and comply they are not
legally required to, not in the US.

Sheldon

"Sheldon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Doug Kanter said:

"pennyaline" <[email hidden]>
wrote
in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sheldon wrote:
> Methinks this article must assume all folks frequent an establishemnt
> but once... it definitely pays to tip, and well, at a restaurant one
> frequents often. Naturally if the experience is such that due to poor
> service you're never going to return then why bother to tip at all, I
> don't, the consumer votes with its pocketbook. There's no rule that
> says poor service deserves a tip anyway.

Methinks also that both the author and the restaurant owner missed the
court
case in which demanding addtional "service charges" in the guise of or
in
lieu of gratuities, and in the absence of additional services, was
found
to
be bogus and therefore unenforceable.

That sounds odd. There are plenty of restaurants where it'll say on the
menu
"A 12% service charge will be added for parties of 10 or more", or
something
in that vein. Regardless of what "the court case" said, this is not
unusual.

Nothing odd. Doesn't matter what it says on a menu, a menu is not a
legal instrument. Many restaurants post signs/notices saying "Not
Responsible For Personal Property (per management)", but by law they
are responsible, not only for your property but they're responsible for
you bodily as well (regardless the presumptuousness of management), in
NYC businesses are prohibited by law from posting such signs. A
business is an "invitee", ergo they are responsible. Btw, a restaurant
patron is not required to read a menu, in fact they are not required to
know how to read. In order to enforce a 12% service charge the
business must inform *verbally* _prior to_ taking an order, where upon
with _acceptance_ a legal contract (verbal) is entered into... posting
a private sign/notice (especially one contrary to law) hoping it will
be read and comprehended does not a legal contract make. Even though
the vast majority of patrons will note the sign and comply they are not
legally required to, not in the US.

Sheldon

Interesting - not required to read. I wonder how someone claiming to be
illiterate would explain how they chose an item off the menu, especially in
a place where relatively uncommon dishes were served.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Doug Kanter said:

Speaking of bad restaurant policies, I'd like to know who started the "guys"
habit: "Hi....can I bring you guys something to drink?" Or, "How are you
guys doing tonight?" This, spoken to a group consisting of 3 women and 1
man. A friend of mine is rounding up financing for a restaurant. She says
her #1 rule will be that if the word "guys" is uttered by a waiter/waitress,
that person will be given the choice of dishwashing duty, or termination. I
love it.

English is a continually evolving language, but I know what you mean.

What I want to know is if a few American restaurants tried to blaze a
trail and do away with the practice of tipping wait staff, what would
the reaction on the part of those restaurants' customers be? I suspect
that most Americans are so entrenched into tipping for table service
that they will object, even if they are told verbally and in written
form not to tip their waitperson. I suspect that most Americans have the
perception that tipping motivates improved service, even if that
perception does not match reality and even if they leave a small tip. I
suspect the tipping system will not fade from the American restaurant
scene in my lifetime.

"Stan Horwitz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Doug Kanter said:

Speaking of bad restaurant policies, I'd like to know who started the
"guys"
habit: "Hi....can I bring you guys something to drink?" Or, "How are you
guys doing tonight?" This, spoken to a group consisting of 3 women and 1
man. A friend of mine is rounding up financing for a restaurant. She says
her #1 rule will be that if the word "guys" is uttered by a
waiter/waitress,
that person will be given the choice of dishwashing duty, or termination.
I
love it.

English is a continually evolving language, but I know what you mean.

What I want to know is if a few American restaurants tried to blaze a
trail and do away with the practice of tipping wait staff, what would
the reaction on the part of those restaurants' customers be? I suspect
that most Americans are so entrenched into tipping for table service
that they will object, even if they are told verbally and in written
form not to tip their waitperson. I suspect that most Americans have the
perception that tipping motivates improved service, even if that
perception does not match reality and even if they leave a small tip. I
suspect the tipping system will not fade from the American restaurant
scene in my lifetime.

In a way, it might hurt the business if the restaurants had to increase
salaries to make up for the absence of tips. Up go the prices, and now some
place become unaffordable, at least in the eyes of some customers.

What you said about motivation is true - I wish it worked. But
unfortunately, many restaurants are run by people so young that they've
never seen a truly skilled waiter at work. The result is that there's nobody
to emulate. So, you end up with "Hi, guys, my name's Buffy and I'll be your
waitress tonight".

There's a place here (Dentico's, in Rochester NY) that's got a really
outstanding waiter. For all intents and purposes, he's running his own
business within the restaurant. You don't make reservations at Dentico's -
you make them to eat with Andy, a retired Kodak chemist who grew up in Rome,
paying for college by working in restaurants. The restaurant's nothing
fancy - one of many "family Italian" places in this city. But, this waiter
makes everything perfect, every time, no matter how you like to eat. He
knows exactly how to work with the kitchen so that no matter what your
"eating speed", everything arrives when it's supposed to. It's not unusual
for customers to lean over to the next table and ask "Is this guy always
this good???" He gets serious tips.

He endeared himself to my ex and I when my son was about 7 years old. Andy
asked what vegetable he wanted with dinner. My son, who was usually a good
eater, said "No thanks". Andy says "It's against the rules to sell a dessert
to a kid who doesn't have a vegetable. I could get into a lot of trouble".
:-) He got my son to try escarole sauteed with garlic. He ended up ordering
two servings of the stuff, and having no dessert. :-)

Bob said:

Doug replied to pennyaline:

Quoted message said:

I said:

Methinks also that both the author and the restaurant owner missed the
court case in which demanding addtional "service charges" in the guise

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

or in lieu of gratuities, and in the absence of additional services,

was

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

found to be bogus and therefore unenforceable.

That sounds odd. There are plenty of restaurants where it'll say on the
menu "A 12% service charge will be added for parties of 10 or more", or
something in that vein. Regardless of what "the court case" said, this

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

not unusual.

First, I have to chuckle at pennyaline's use of precise legal terminology.
I don't know how many times Daniel Webster won in court by pointing at his
opposition and thundering out a scathing "BOGUS!" :-)

Ahem!! Scoff if you will. But would you ever have suspected that Daniel
Webster was in fact one of my forebears??

So, watch yourself 😉

Quoted message said:

Doug, I think I know what she's talking about:

www.gothamist.com/archives/2004/09/15/the_tipping_point.php

"In a blow to restaurant owners and servers in particular, prosecutors
upstate ruled that a diner could not be forced to pay a tip - even if the
restaurant says it's mandatory."

Of course, that's just ONE case in ONE municipal court. There's no
requirement for rigid consistency between judicial venues in cases like
that; a similar case could easily go the other way in some other city.

Moreover, Thomas Keller may be well aware of that case, but he might have
some reason to believe his service charge *will* be enforceable. The

quoted

Quoted message said:

portion doesn't say how the service charge is applied: It might differ
significantly enough from customary tipping practices that the court would
reasonably view it as an entirely different animal altogether. For

example,

Quoted message said:

if the service charge doesn't depend on the cost of the meal, but is a

flat

Quoted message said:

fee applied to each diner, then I can see some legitimacy to the claim

that

Quoted message said:

the service fee differs significantly from a tip. Maybe even if the flat

fee

Quoted message said:

were upped for parties requiring the services of a sommelier -- the
restaurant is providing an additional service, so it applies an additional
fee. But since I don't know what it meant by a "European-style service
charge," that's conjecture on my part. Any of you Europeans want to chime

in

Quoted message said:

here and explain how service charges are applied in your part of the

world?

Here's what I think: the "European-style service charge" is a load of [censored],
something European restaurants charge American tourists because they know
Americans will pay it as they pat themselves on the back in congratulations
for having dined in a European restaurant... they'll even hold on to the
credit card receipt to show to their friends at home: "And this down here at
the bottom is the extra European restaurant charge!"

If the restaurant employs a sommelier, it employs a sommelier to provide
services to restaurant customers. If the person providing the service is
already there to provide a service, then customers should not be charged
extra for that service.

It would be different if the restaurant had to go and seek out a sommelier
for customers who are demanding one, to provide an extraordinary service.
(In a case such as that, would it be inappropriate for the sommelier to bill
the customers separately? 🙂 )

<oh please, don't start!>