▲ 18 ▼ World Cup tourists aren’t leaving tips — and NYC restaurants are fighting back (nypost.com) submitted 4 months ago by Blaze to c/football@sopuli.xyz 15 comments fedilink hide all child comments The World Cup games at MetLife Stadium are bringing in roughly 1.2 million soccer fans from around the globe to NYC, and restaurants are raking in big bucks — except the tipping.
[–] TheJesusaurus@piefed.ca 29 points 4 months ago (7 children) I thought it was optional permalink fedilink source hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] iocase@lemmy.zip 10 points 4 months ago* It's not. At least culturally in the US and Canada. People will say it is to justify the entire premise of tipping but it's very much an expectation that you tip. I fucking hate tipping though so I'll literally avoid places that ask for tips and go to alternatives. permalink fedilink source parent [–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 months ago (2 children) It's supposed to be. But, some workers aren't paid the same hourly rate as others, and tips being given is the surface level reason given for that. It's more classist amd racist in real terms. So, since a wide swath of workers only get paid an insulting, horrible hourly wage, tips are how they actually pay their bills. So it's become mandatory in any real sense. It isn't required by law, but you're fucking over people when you don't, so there's still an obligation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] emmanuel_car@fedia.io 4 points 4 months ago (1 child) Why is the obligation on the customer to ensure the employee is paid a fair wage, and not the employer and/or government? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago Exactly. It shouldn't be. But, the reason is classism and racism. The servant is beneath the owner class. That's what it boils down to. Since, here in the US for sure (but not exclusively), black people in particular have been that servant class along with women, of course the owner class wants to pay them nothing. Since it serves the same interests to have the working class kept in their place as well, shifting the obligation on them means that a majority of the "servants" will be pissed at their fellow working class neighbors instead of the ruling class. It's a win-win. So the laws were shaped to keep that in place, while pretending to help by establishing a bare minimum. It's bullshit, and always has been, though it was an improvement over having no minimum wage at all permalink fedilink source parent [+] valar@lemmy.ca 1 point 4 months ago* (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Ledivin@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago (2 children) If they don't make federal minimum wage, their employer is required to make up the difference. If minimum wage isn't enough to live on, why is it the minimum wage? 🤔 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 months ago The employee can just adapt and offer a bonus to compensate. No laws against that. And using bonuses to avoid giving raises is a time honoured tradition. permalink fedilink source parent [–] valar@lemmy.ca 1 point 4 months ago Cuz that would cut into profits permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] iocase@lemmy.zip 10 points 4 months ago* It's not. At least culturally in the US and Canada. People will say it is to justify the entire premise of tipping but it's very much an expectation that you tip. I fucking hate tipping though so I'll literally avoid places that ask for tips and go to alternatives. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 months ago (2 children) It's supposed to be. But, some workers aren't paid the same hourly rate as others, and tips being given is the surface level reason given for that. It's more classist amd racist in real terms. So, since a wide swath of workers only get paid an insulting, horrible hourly wage, tips are how they actually pay their bills. So it's become mandatory in any real sense. It isn't required by law, but you're fucking over people when you don't, so there's still an obligation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] emmanuel_car@fedia.io 4 points 4 months ago (1 child) Why is the obligation on the customer to ensure the employee is paid a fair wage, and not the employer and/or government? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago Exactly. It shouldn't be. But, the reason is classism and racism. The servant is beneath the owner class. That's what it boils down to. Since, here in the US for sure (but not exclusively), black people in particular have been that servant class along with women, of course the owner class wants to pay them nothing. Since it serves the same interests to have the working class kept in their place as well, shifting the obligation on them means that a majority of the "servants" will be pissed at their fellow working class neighbors instead of the ruling class. It's a win-win. So the laws were shaped to keep that in place, while pretending to help by establishing a bare minimum. It's bullshit, and always has been, though it was an improvement over having no minimum wage at all permalink fedilink source parent
[–] emmanuel_car@fedia.io 4 points 4 months ago (1 child) Why is the obligation on the customer to ensure the employee is paid a fair wage, and not the employer and/or government? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago Exactly. It shouldn't be. But, the reason is classism and racism. The servant is beneath the owner class. That's what it boils down to. Since, here in the US for sure (but not exclusively), black people in particular have been that servant class along with women, of course the owner class wants to pay them nothing. Since it serves the same interests to have the working class kept in their place as well, shifting the obligation on them means that a majority of the "servants" will be pissed at their fellow working class neighbors instead of the ruling class. It's a win-win. So the laws were shaped to keep that in place, while pretending to help by establishing a bare minimum. It's bullshit, and always has been, though it was an improvement over having no minimum wage at all permalink fedilink source parent
[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago Exactly. It shouldn't be. But, the reason is classism and racism. The servant is beneath the owner class. That's what it boils down to. Since, here in the US for sure (but not exclusively), black people in particular have been that servant class along with women, of course the owner class wants to pay them nothing. Since it serves the same interests to have the working class kept in their place as well, shifting the obligation on them means that a majority of the "servants" will be pissed at their fellow working class neighbors instead of the ruling class. It's a win-win. So the laws were shaped to keep that in place, while pretending to help by establishing a bare minimum. It's bullshit, and always has been, though it was an improvement over having no minimum wage at all permalink fedilink source parent
[+] valar@lemmy.ca 1 point 4 months ago* (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Ledivin@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago (2 children) If they don't make federal minimum wage, their employer is required to make up the difference. If minimum wage isn't enough to live on, why is it the minimum wage? 🤔 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 months ago The employee can just adapt and offer a bonus to compensate. No laws against that. And using bonuses to avoid giving raises is a time honoured tradition. permalink fedilink source parent [–] valar@lemmy.ca 1 point 4 months ago Cuz that would cut into profits permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ledivin@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago (2 children) If they don't make federal minimum wage, their employer is required to make up the difference. If minimum wage isn't enough to live on, why is it the minimum wage? 🤔 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 months ago The employee can just adapt and offer a bonus to compensate. No laws against that. And using bonuses to avoid giving raises is a time honoured tradition. permalink fedilink source parent [–] valar@lemmy.ca 1 point 4 months ago Cuz that would cut into profits permalink fedilink source parent
[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 months ago The employee can just adapt and offer a bonus to compensate. No laws against that. And using bonuses to avoid giving raises is a time honoured tradition. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] valar@lemmy.ca 1 point 4 months ago Cuz that would cut into profits permalink fedilink source parent