Hmph. I'm having trouble getting past the fact that he's referring to his business as a "non-tipping model" when in fact what it is is a "forced tipping model." (I get that there may be legitimate legal reasons why a business needs to apportion the bill using a tip model, but the fact remains that the result is not that I DON'T tip but that I am FORCED to tip, so it seems like the correct neutral term would be "fixed tip".) I mean
( ... )
Are all non-all-inclusive prices equally pernicious, or is there something in particular about tips?
I would really rather see advertised prices be accurate, too. But I think that a fixed-size surcharge for table service is strictly better than tipping, by quite a bit, for the reasons described. Also, if most restaurants had a similar size, it would make a stepping stone to folding it in to all-in prices.
I think there's a conflation of several things in "tipping", as we see it. One is the notion that the sticker price isn't the real price (see also: many taxes, and haggling). Another is the notion of charging extra for service and table rental. And another is the notion of varying payment depending on how much you liked the performance. I think he views the first as a necessary evil in our current economic environment, the second as perfectly OK, and the third as abhorrent
( ... )
Re: sighcontrarietySeptember 20 2013, 17:50:38 UTC
Yeah, I mean, I find the tax issue moderately annoying as well - I'd prefer to see a fully burdened price right up front, frankly. But the tax alone is a moderate issue (<=10%) ; tip/service is a bigger one, especially when added on top of tax
( ... )
Reply
Reply
I would really rather see advertised prices be accurate, too. But I think that a fixed-size surcharge for table service is strictly better than tipping, by quite a bit, for the reasons described. Also, if most restaurants had a similar size, it would make a stepping stone to folding it in to all-in prices.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment