Pizza Delivery

[SkyTrooper]

Prove that a tip to a delivery driver is a form of bribe. Use any definition off an academic or government website you choose and show that it meets the criteria stated in that definition.

[Inspector]

Prove that a tip to a delivery driver is a form of bribe. Use any definition off an academic or government website you choose and show that it meets the criteria stated in that definition.

No, no cheap shots: are you in or are you out?

Bribe, defined:

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dic...efid=1861592653

Definition:

persuade somebody with enticement: to give somebody money or some other incentive to do something, especially something illegal or dishonest

(bold mine)

Also, my argument does not hinge on the word "bribe," but rather that it is dishonest for someone to demand additional payment to do that which they are already contractually obligated to do.

[SkyTrooper]

Definition:

persuade somebody with enticement: to give somebody money or some other incentive to do something, especially something illegal or dishonest

(bold mine)

So the driver comes to the door with the pizza, he hands you the pizza and your bill, and then you "bribe" him???

What is the something you are giving him an incentive to do? If you don't pay the "bribe", there is no possible negative consequence that you can suffer.

So of the criteria listed from that definition:

1) incentive (money)

2) given to somebody

3) to do something

4) usually illegal or dishonest

It meets (1) and (2) but miserably fails at (3).

As for (4) it is certainly not illegal and you are the only person I know that has ever called it dishonest.

A Tip is not a bribe by this definition.

[SkyTrooper]

Also, my argument does not hinge on the word "bribe," but rather that it is dishonest for someone to demand additional payment to do that which they are already contractually obligated to do.

As for your second argument: as strange as it may sound, your delivery driver is not contractually obligated to deliver pizzas. His contract is to work for Domino's or Pizza Hut, and he signs the same contract and is paid the same rate as the in-store personnel. He is payed (usually) 0.50 cents per delivery plus tips for bringing you pizzas, but if he shows up to work without a car he will be assigned to make pizzas, do dishes, etc.

I still don't see where you've gotten your "mutually exclusive" criteria for contracts from. In a free society you can hire a general contractor to paint half your floor and then pay the sub contractor hired to do the job (by the GC) to paint the other half of the floor.

In the same way, you can enter into a contract with the employee to deliver the pizza and with his employer to have the pizza made.

[Seeker]

In the same way, you can enter into a contract with the employee to deliver the pizza and with his employer to have the pizza made.

You can, but no one does. The payment to the pizza place includes delivering the pizza. Do you dispute that this is so?

Edited March 27, 2007 by Seeker

[Inspector]

You can, but no one does. The payment to the pizza place includes delivering the pizza. Do you dispute that this is so?

Yes, exactly.

Also, if I am to respond further, I would like to know what the status of our discussion is. You said you were done. Then you addressed me again and demanded a proof from me. So what's going on?

Edited March 27, 2007 by Inspector

[SkyTrooper]

Also, if I am to respond further, I would like to know what the status of our discussion is. You said you were done. Then you addressed me again and demanded a proof from me. So what's going on?

I built a bridge between your cognitive content and mine. I showed that you have essentially two constructs that lie under the concept "Tip": tip/bribe and tip/gratuity. I also explained that I have several constructs that I call "Tips": tip/bribe, tip/fee, tip/gratuity(Altruism), and tip/gratuity(Benevolence).

Despite the clear pathway to finally resolving this ridiculous dispute, which would simply consist of checking to see if "Pizza Delivery Tip" meets the criteria for each concept, you opted to go back on previous positions you conceded and return to your dismissive method.

You went back on yielding that the concept of tip/fee "things that are called tips but are actually fees" even existed. Now you have withdrawn your assertion that you can't have a contract with both an employer and his employee, and treated your withdrawal of this point as trivial, even though your entire argument for the "immorality" of tipping delivery drivers was based on it.

So I don't know what the status of our discussion is. I suppose its analogous to madmen bickering in an insane asylum.

[Seeker]

The payment to the pizza place includes delivering the pizza. Do you dispute that this is so?

[Moebius]

Despite the clear pathway to finally resolving this ridiculous dispute, which would simply consist of checking to see if "Pizza Delivery Tip" meets the criteria for each concept, you opted to go back on previous positions you conceded and return to your dismissive method.

Because you keep inventing these random concepts that weren't part of the discussion, and then throwing it into your argument as if it were an established fact.

It's as if we're talking about whether a fruit was an apple or an orange, then you suddenly throw in four or five apples and go "well it's obviously an apple, but which kind of apple is it?". You're basically bypassing everyone else's argument and jumping straight to your conclusion.

[Inspector]

You went back on yielding that the concept of tip/fee "things that are called tips but are actually fees" even existed.

No, I didn't. Note the word "PARTICULAR." Next time, read more carefully.

Now you have withdrawn your assertion that you can't have a contract with both an employer and his employee, and treated your withdrawal of this point as trivial, even though your entire argument for the "immorality" of tipping delivery drivers was based on it.

What have I withdrawn? My argument is based on the fact - and I have now lost count of how many times I have said this - that there is already an existing contract that binds the deliveryman to do his bloody job.

So I don't know what the status of our discussion is. I suppose its analogous to madmen bickering in an insane asylum.

No madmen. Just one person - you - with a big reading comprehension problem.

[SkyTrooper]

The payment to the pizza place includes delivering the pizza. Do you dispute that this is so?

I dispute this. The payment to the pizza place does not include delivering the pizza. Recently, many places have instituted "delivery fees" but being as the new fees do not go to or involve the driver they are "delivery fees" in name only. The payment for the driver to be waiting for you to call and order a pizza comes from the company. The payment for the driver delivering the pizza and doing so in a fast and professional manner comes from you in the form of a tip.

No madmen. Just one person - you - with a big reading comprehension problem.

Inspector,

I will no longer respond to your posts. I have nothing to say to you.

[SkyTrooper]

It's as if we're talking about whether a fruit was an apple or an orange, then you suddenly throw in four or five apples and go "well it's obviously an apple, but which kind of apple is it?". You're basically bypassing everyone else's argument and jumping straight to your conclusion.

Moebius,

It's more like I'm trying to explain the difference to you between an Apple, an Orange, and a Grapefruit while you deny the obvious existence of Grapefruits and Oranges and claim instead that there are only Fruits and Apples that are called Fruits.

You're obviously missing some sort of experiential data necessary to form these concepts. Have you actually ever ordered a pizza?

[Inspector]

Inspector,

I will no longer respond to your posts. I have nothing to say to you.

Let's review: You failed to read my post, mistaking my meaning. You were a bit frustrated by what you thought, mistakenly, that I meant.

Okay, so far so good.

Then you called me a madman.

I denied this, stating the trouble was your reading comprehension. I showed how this was the case. I used about as much politeness as could be expected from someone who was just called a madman even though he didn't say anything mad.

So you have two choices at this point. Suck it up and apologize, or - even though it is you who are in the wrong; you who first decided to fling insults - play the part of the righteous and wounded, and storm off. I've got a thick skin so it's no bother to me. Even though I am the one who has been wronged, I'll happily continue this to its conclusion. An apology would be nice, though.

[Moebius]

I dispute this. The payment to the pizza place does not include delivering the pizza. Recently, many places have instituted "delivery fees" but being as the new fees do not go to or involve the driver they are "delivery fees" in name only. The payment for the driver to be waiting for you to call and order a pizza comes from the company. The payment for the driver delivering the pizza and doing so in a fast and professional manner comes from you in the form of a tip.

The bottom line is this: to me as a customer, the pay structure of the pizza delivery man is irrelevant to me. I call up a pizza place, I make a deal with them for X amount of dollars to deliver a pizza to me, and that's that. I may or may not tip the delivery man based on my whims, but I'm certainly not morally nor legally obligated to tip him, regardless of the fact that he may be losing money on the delivery should I fail to tip.

Your argument of implicit contract fails because it is well understood, by custom and by law, that tipping is optional. It may be bad manners or etiquette, but it isn't a moral or legal issue.

The part that you're failing to understand is the "optional" part of tipping. And no matter how many random and irrelevant concepts you invent, it seems to me that virtually everybody else --including people that work for tips-- understand that it is optional, regardless of how many off-the-mark analogies you bring up about every other profession. This is a key point because a large portion of your argument hinges on the fact that it is implicitly understood that a tip is in actuality a fee, when in fact it isn't.

And finally, no, the fact that most people tip doesn't "prove" that tipping is a implied contract, nor a fee. It simply means that most people are altruistic, benevolent, showboating, appreciative, or simply wish to have good services in the future. People that do not tip are well within their rights not to do so.

If you fail to grasp these simple concepts, then you are correct in that there really isn't anything left to talk about.

[Moebius]

You're obviously missing some sort of experiential data necessary to form these concepts. Have you actually ever ordered a pizza?

Sure I have. What is the relevance of your question? What sort of "experimental data" are you referring to? The only thing in question here is what the definition of a "tip" is. And clearly just about everybody else understand what it means except you. From dictionary.com:

tip3, noun, verb, tipped, tip·ping.–noun

1. a small present of money given directly to someone for performing a service or menial task; gratuity: He gave the waiter a dollar as a tip.

Basically when everyone else talks about a tip, they're talking about a tip. Yet you insist on arguing that what they actually mean is an "implied contract", "casual payment", "fee", or whatever. I hope this clears everything up.

Edited March 27, 2007 by Moebius

[Seeker]

I dispute this. The payment to the pizza place does not include delivering the pizza. Recently, many places have instituted "delivery fees" but being as the new fees do not go to or involve the driver they are "delivery fees" in name only. The payment for the driver to be waiting for you to call and order a pizza comes from the company. The payment for the driver delivering the pizza and doing so in a fast and professional manner comes from you in the form of a tip.

So the pizza company does not pay you to deliver pizzas, delivering pizzas is not part of your job description with the company, and the company would not fire you if you refused to deliver a pizza to a known non-tipper, as a failure to complete the job for which you were being paid?

[SkyTrooper]

Moebius,

Concepts come from our experiences which we integrate together and make general constructs. The reason I asked is because I noticed you're not from the US so you probably haven't seen people tipping delivery drivers, which is an extremely common practice here.

[SkyTrooper]

So the pizza company does not pay you to deliver pizzas, delivering pizzas is not part of your job description with the company, and the company would not fire you if you refused to deliver a pizza to a known non-tipper, as a failure to complete the job for which you were being paid?

No, as I've said plenty of times in this humongous thread drivers sign the same contract as the "in-store" employees. If a driver shows up without a car for whatever reason he is put on one of the in-store jobs, like making pizzas or answering phones. Drivers generally get something above the "in-store" pay around $.50 a delivery, but this would not compensate them even for gas and wear on their car. Drivers choose to make deliveries because they expect tips for their work.

Also, I never saw any employees fired for any reasons besides fighting and theft. Drivers are paid paid by the company to work odd jobs around the store until a customer wants a delivery, for which they are paid in tips. If they refuse to make a delivery they will not be fired.

Edited March 27, 2007 by badkarma556

[Moebius]

Moebius,

Concepts come from our experiences which we integrate together and make general constructs. The reason I asked is because I noticed you're not from the US so you probably haven't seen people tipping delivery drivers, which is an extremely common practice here.

What? I'm 25, I was born in the US, and I lived in the US for about thirteen years. Again I ask how is this relevant to the discussion at hand?

You keep reiterating the fact that tipping is a common practice, when I've already addressed why that is irrelevant SEVERAL TIMES in this thread. You still haven't addressed any of my points, particularly the fact that you're apparently using a different definition of the word "tip" (in fact several, all of which you apparently pulled out of thin air) from virtually everybody else on this thread.

[Seeker]

No, as I've said plenty of times in this humongous thread drivers sign the same contract as the "in-store" employees. If a driver shows up without a car for whatever reason he is put on one of the in-store jobs, like making pizzas or answering phones. Drivers generally get something above the "in-store" pay around $.50 a delivery, but this would not compensate them even for gas and wear on their car. Drivers choose to make deliveries because they expect tips for their work.

Also, I never saw any employees fired for any reasons besides fighting and theft. Drivers are paid paid by the company to work odd jobs around the store until a customer wants a delivery, for which they are paid in tips. If they refuse to make a delivery they will not be fired.

Well then, there's your solution. If you aren't bound by your agreement with your boss to deliver pizzas and it's a losing proposition for you, don't deliver pizzas. Either they'll pony up more dough, or the customers going hungry at home will. What you should NOT do is continue at a losing proposition and think that airing your complaints here will do any good whatsoever.

[Moebius]

Drivers choose to make deliveries because they expect tips for their work.

Okay let's take it from this start. Assuming that, like a normal English speaking person, you use the actual definition of the word tip. We now know that:

1) A tip is a gratuity that's optional.

2) Most Americans tip.

3) A driver chooses to make deliveries.

Hey guess what?!? Now we know why drivers make deliveries even though his pay may not cover his cost -- it's due to his knowledge that most people tip! He's not duped by the employer into tipping, nor is he shafted by the customer when he isn't tipped.

Now that we know why drivers choose to deliver despite their reliance on tips (because he knows most people tip), the next question is whether the customer is required to tip. The answer is NO, by definition. Again the pay structure of the driver is irrelevant to the customer, since the explicit deal he makes is with the pizza parlor.

Again, why most people tip is irrelevant to this discussion. It could be for any of the reasons you mentioned before. Some people do it for rational reasons, others do it for irrational reasons. It doesn't matter. The fact that most people tip DOES NOT, and I repeat, DOES NOT prove that a customer is obligated to tip. Nor does it change that definition of the word tip.

Edited March 27, 2007 by Moebius

[SkyTrooper]

Well then, there's your solution. If you aren't bound by your agreement with your boss to deliver pizzas and it's a losing proposition for you, don't deliver pizzas. Either they'll pony up more dough, or the customers going hungry at home will. What you should NOT do is continue at a losing proposition and think that airing your complaints here will do any good whatsoever.

Dude, I'm not a delivery driver.

[Seeker]

Dude, I'm not a delivery driver.

Well then, what's the problem?

[SkyTrooper]

Let's review: You failed to read my post, mistaking my meaning. You were a bit frustrated by what you thought, mistakenly, that I meant.

Okay, so far so good.

Then you called me a madman.

I denied this, stating the trouble was your reading comprehension. I showed how this was the case. I used about as much politeness as could be expected from someone who was just called a madman even though he didn't say anything mad.

So you have two choices at this point. Suck it up and apologize, or - even though it is you who are in the wrong; you who first decided to fling insults - play the part of the righteous and wounded, and storm off. I've got a thick skin so it's no bother to me. Even though I am the one who has been wronged, I'll happily continue this to its conclusion. An apology would be nice, though.

You continued to argue that a tip was a bribe, for the same reasons which you repeated and I repeatedly rejected. I pointed out that our conversation could be likened to madmen in an insane asylum but did not say you were mad. Then you accused me of having a learning disability, which was only one of many times you used Ad Hominem against me.

So I don't care. You can continue to denounce me for "bribing" delivery drivers for providing me with a service for which they are otherwise not receiving fair compensation, and we'll just drop it.

[Inspector]

Then you accused me of having a learning disability, which was only one of many times you used Ad Hominem against me.

I said you had a reading comprehension problem - as in, I say things and you do not read them. Which the record will show is true. So that's not an Ad Hom. I wasn't using it as an argument at all, so it couldn't be an Ad Hom, but the point is that I was only saying something that is true. I guess I could have picked a nicer way to say it, and I would have if you had picked a nicer way to say what you were saying.

I am confused, however: I could be wrong here, but where are these "many" Ad Hominems I have used against you? So far I count zero Ad Homs and one not-nice thing which was in direct response to a not-nice thing you said.

So I don't care. You can continue to denounce me for "bribing" delivery drivers for providing me with a service for which they are otherwise not receiving fair compensation, and we'll just drop it.

Well, if you're going to continue dropping bombs like this:

The payment to the pizza place does not include delivering the pizza.

...in light of the fact that in every example I gave, I explicitly stated that the price of delivery was explicitly stated during the pizza ordering*, then yeah maybe we should drop it.

(note, again, that this is yet still further proof that you have not been reading what I have been writing)

*there was even the time where you asked me what I would do if the menu did not list a delivery price or say "free delivery," and I responded that that had never happened to me, and if it did I would ask what the price of delivery was. I'll even elaborate on that point: if there was no delivery charge or statement of free delivery on the menu, I would order my pizza and then when given the total, I would ask, "does that include delivery?" If the answer was "yes," then would the payment to the pizza place include delivering the pizza? How about if the menu specified a delivery charge or if it said "free delivery?" (the latter two being the only thing I have ever encountered in my entire life)