Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
BaseballGenius

Pizza Delivery

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Ok, I see why some people are getting aggravated and it's almost amusing....

BaseballGenius, the reason why DavidOdden said he might tip me from my post is because he perceives me to be a nice person who realizes that tips are very much appreciated niceties, not something I neccessarily deserve from doing my job, whereas you project that tips are something you are entitled to, just as he has been saying. You tell me I am too compassionate with people who do not tip? Who are you to tell me how I should treat other people? Excuse me for being nice and realizing that these are all people who I may, and probably very soon, meet again -- perhaps in a different social setting -- and I do not want anyone remembering me as some ornery delivery girl walking around with some air of entitlement about how much of other people's money belongs to her. Do you not understand the value of kindness? If not then suddenly, I understand why you have been getting stiffed.

That's the point of this thread -- to help you understand that you deserve $0 every single time you deliver a pizza. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. You deserve nothing. You did your job, you are making an hourly wage for that. Now, social customs in America tell people that you should tip those in service jobs because it provides an incentive to be friendly while you perform that job -- not for doing that job, but for doing it with a smile on your face, for doing it and for making it seem like you are happy to be doing it for whoever. That is the point of the tip. That is why I'm nice. (Also because it just makes my day more fun.) Now, you say some people are faster than others -- true. I'm probably the second fastest driver at my job, if not the first, and that means generally by the end of the night I have made more delivaries than any other driver working my shift, which means I get more compensation for the night and it also means I had more opportunities to be out there earning tips. Because I am good at my job I will probably make more money due to the frequency of my delivaries. Still, no where in there am I owed any customer's money except the price of the food I am delivering. You say we drivers deliver to the bad parts of town -- true enough. While I have worked here 2 guys have gotten mugged, one of which was beaten, and a third had his car stolen. That's what happens sometimes when you cross the wrong side of the tracks. Does that mean I won't deliver to someone who orders? No. Does that mean the manager puts on ban on those places which physically assalted our drivers? Yes. It's part of your job -- deal with it. A lot of people have jobs where they are exposed to dangerous situations. You don't like it? Get another job. Yes, your car is racking up mileage and you have to pay from your own pocket to maintain the upkeep of your car. That's a part of being a delivary driver. You think I like the scratches I get on the roof of my car because of that topper? No, but hey, the hours are flexible, the people are nice and my tips are pretty good, so it's a little give and take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're clearly missing the fact that a pizza delivery man entered into his service contract with the employer of his own will.

You're missed the entire point of my example. I am not saying drivers are slaves, I am showing that the fact that the owner of the business does not insulate you from the mechanism that he is using to provide you with services. Here are several possible agreements you can make when buying a pizza.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Agreement #1: Entirely Explicit with No Tip

You make an explicit deal with the Pizza Company Owner that he will make you a pizza and get it delivered to your door. The owner hires an employee to deliver the pizza. The employee is paid by the owner to compensate him for his costs, and the employee delivers you the pizza.

Agreement #2: Entirely Explicit with Tip Included

You make an explicit deal with the Pizza Company Owner that he will make you a pizza. If you want it delivered he will send out an employee with it, and there is an stated agreement that you will pay a fee to the driver that is approximately 20% of the bill unless you are not satisfied with the service, in which case you must still pay a 10% fee. When the Owner tells you the charge of the pizza he says tells you the base price and explains the tipping requirement. The owner sends one of his employees to deliver the pizza.

Agreement #3: Partially Explicit, Tip Assumed by Social Convention

You make an explicit deal with the Pizza Company Owner that he will make you a pizza. If you want it delivered he will send out an employee with it, and there is an unstated (but understood) agreement that you will pay a fee "the tip" to the driver that is approximately 20% of the bill unless you are not satisfied with the service. The owner sends one of his employees to deliver the pizza.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

These are all agreements that are possible in reality. Do you disagree that these are physically possible?

I agree that Agreement #3 is the worst agreement you can make. I think Agreement #2 is needlessly confusing, but still has merit since if I think the service is bad than I don't pay as much (less value, less price!). Agreement #3 sucks!

What agreement are you operating under when you order a pizza in the United States for delivery?

You are operating under Agreement #3. You are expected to know this because every American has ordered pizza plenty of times before and seen it done by others. No one is forcing you into this agreement. If you don't like the agreement, don't order the pizza.

You live in a society where Agreement #3 dominates. You order a pizza for delivery and don't tip the driver. How can you argue that this is ethical? By saying you are operating under Agreement #1, obviously. This is where my "double whammy" comes in:

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Agreement #1A: Entirely Explicit with No Tip; Driver Told he Will Not Be Tipped

You make an explicit deal with the Pizza Company Owner that he will make you a pizza and get it delivered to your door. The owner hires an employee to deliver the pizza, and the employee is told and understands that he will not be tipped. The employee is paid by the owner to compensate him for his costs (because the employee would not take the job unless he knows he will make money at it), and the employee delivers you the pizza.

Agreement #1B: Entirely Explicit with No Tip; but Driver Told he Will Be Tipped

You make an explicit deal with the Pizza Company Owner that he will make you a pizza and get it delivered to your door. The owner hires an employee to deliver the pizza, and is told that although his costs are high he will be making money in tips. The employee is not paid by the owner to compensate him for his costs (because he thinks he will make his money in tips), and the employee delivers you the pizza.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

The problem with most people here is that you conclude that Agreement #1B is ethical. In my plantation owner example I was pointing out that it is wrong to buy slave cotton because the Owner is using force on the slaves to make his product. Agreement #1B is unethical because the Owner is using dishonesty to convince the driver to deliver you a pizza.

Summary

1) If you pretend that you are ordering under Agreement #1 and act accordingly, while in fact Agreement #3 is at play, you are violating a contract.

2) If you argue that I am wrong and you are actually acting under Agreement #1B, you have no right to enter into that contract.

Edited by badkarma556

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Badkarma,

It is clear that you didn't listen to anything that I wrote, and your idea of how things work is byzantine nonsense. You have only solidified my thoughts that the tipping-is-morally-required crowd is living in fantasy land.

FaSheezy has the right attitude; something I find very refreshing. That's the kind of thinking that might actually earn a tip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Badkarma,

It is clear that you didn't listen to anything that I wrote, and your idea of how things work is byzantine nonsense. You have only solidified my thoughts that the tipping-is-morally-required crowd is living in fantasy land.

FaSheezy has the right attitude; something I find very refreshing. That's the kind of thinking that might actually earn a tip.

I insist that I read and analyzed your post to the best of my ability. If I am wrong in my last post I would appreciate if you actually point out the error in my logic rather than dismiss it offhand as "byzantine nonsense." Otherwise, I have no real reason to take your ideas seriously either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreement #3: Partially Explicit, Tip Assumed by Social Convention

You make an explicit deal with the Pizza Company Owner that he will make you a pizza. If you want it delivered he will send out an employee with it, and there is an unstated (but understood) agreement that you will pay a fee "the tip" to the driver that is approximately 20% of the bill unless you are not satisfied with the service. The owner sends one of his employees to deliver the pizza.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

These are all agreements that are possible in reality. Do you disagree that these are physically possible?

Summary

1) If you pretend that you are ordering under Agreement #1 and act accordingly, while in fact Agreement #3 is at play, you are violating a contract.

Sorry to jump in and I'll scram if you guys don't want me, but characterizing social convention as any sort of agreement is baffling to me. You could characterize it as many things, custom, etc. but how exactly do you arrive at the understanding that custom = contract?

Note that this is both from a philosophical perspective and even from a legal perspective, where implied contracts to exist (even by custom) however, I don't see that this in any way would meet even the legal requirement.

Legally, you have to agree in word (explicit) or deed (implied) to have a contract. It can't be something that just is "understood". I think this is a pretty good litmus test even on a philosophical level. How is one to be a voluntary trader, when the ability to voluntarily trade doesn't even exist here? An "understood" contract contains no volition...

Edited by KendallJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry to jump in and I'll scram if you guys don't want me, but characterizing social convention as any sort of agreement is baffling to me. You could characterize it as many things, custom, etc. but how exactly do you arrive at the understanding that custom = contract?

Note that this is both from a philosophical perspective and even from a legal perspective, where implied contracts to exist (even by custom) however, I don't see that this in any way would meet even the legal requirement.

Legally, you have to agree in word (explicit) or deed (implied) to have a contract. It can't be something that just is "understood". I think this is a pretty good litmus test even on a philosophical level. How is one to be a voluntary trader, when the ability to voluntarily trade doesn't even exist here? An "understood" contract contains no volition...

Your point is in response to my question about my "three agreements" that they are "all agreements that are possible in reality. Do you disagree that these are physically possible?"

I think you are saying it is not physically possible to have an implied agreement with someone. This is different from saying that it is not possible for the government to enforce it, or that you would rather not enter into an implied agreement.

If you are correct about this, my entire argument (in post #152) falls apart. However, I think that it is physically possible to have an implied agreement established by custom (even if it is not desirable.)

Examples that come to mind:

1) You put a stamp on a letter and place it in your mailbox. It is implied that the post office will get it somewhere in 3-5 days in exchange for the payment of the stamp. If it gets there 3 months later, or not at all, do you have a reason to be upset? Has the post office broken some sort of agreement?

2) You get in a cab and tell the driver you want to go downtown. The driver does not tell you the price until you get there. "What?!" you say, "I didn't explicitly agree to pay you for driving me somewhere." What claim does the driver have on your money? What is the basis for the contract?

Most of the other examples I can think of only still exist in other countries. If there was no ethical claim on an implied agreement, how could you function in another country? In some sort of "reciprocal" culture where obligations are not stated clearly, do you have a right to take everything you want and not pay for it?

Edit: added a post reference for my original argument

Edited by badkarma556

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you are saying it is not physically possible to have an implied agreement with someone. This is different from saying that it is not possible for the government to enforce it, or that you would rather not enter into an implied agreement.

Thats not what he's saying at all. He's saying social conventions such as tipping doesn't constitute an implicit agreement, not that it's physically impossible to have an implicit agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats not what he's saying at all. He's saying social conventions such as tipping doesn't constitute an implicit agreement, not that it's physically impossible to have an implicit agreement.

I don't think that is what he was saying, but if its what you are saying than read post #152 starting from:

...

You live in a society where Agreement #3 dominates. You order a pizza for delivery and don't tip the driver. How can you argue that this is ethical? By saying you are operating under Agreement #1, obviously. This is where my "double whammy" comes in:

...

As I argue in that post you are holding an untenable position. Either the agreement is fair and implied, or it is unfair and explicit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I insist that I read and analyzed your post to the best of my ability. If I am wrong in my last post I would appreciate if you actually point out the error in my logic rather than dismiss it offhand as "byzantine nonsense." Otherwise, I have no real reason to take your ideas seriously either.

Well, if you did read it, you certainly didn't respond to it. You just asserted your own position again. And, as Kendall points out, your idea leads to an unknowable complex social universe in which you are morally (not just socially) obligated to do things you didn't agree to simply because lots of other people suddenly decided to do them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your point is in response to my question about my "three agreements" that they are "all agreements that are possible in reality. Do you disagree that these are physically possible?"

All your "agreements" certainly are possible, although they're all wrong.

The agreement the customer makes with the pizza parlor is this: I give you X amount of dollars for a pizza to be delivered to my house, and on top of that I may or may not give a tip depending on service and my mood or values. The customer makes NO agreement, implicit or explicit, with the delivery man.

The agreement the delivery man makes with the pizza parlor is this: I agree to accept X amount of dollars to deliver pizzas, and on top of that I also get the tips, if and when I'm tipped.

THAT'S IT. It's that simple. When the customer buys the pizza, he pay for the pie, and on top of that he has the right to decide whether or not he tips. When the delivery man took the job, he has the right to a salary, plus whatever tips he makes. Now it's the customer's job to decide if he'll buy the pizza given the price, and the delivery man's job to decide if he'll take the job given the pay.

Are you seriously trying to argue that the pizza parlor conned you into delivering the pizza? And even if they did, since you're not a slave, it's up to you to quit. That part of the agreement is entirely between YOU and the PIZZA PARLOR, and has nothing to do with the customer at all.

Finally, I fundamentally disagree with your argument of tipping being a social custom. As far as I know, the social custom is that the customer has a right to tip if they liked the service, not an obligation. The fact that most people do it simply mean that most of them either liked the service, are generous, or are irrationally following the "I do it because everyone else does it" mentality.

Now if you agree that doing something only because everyone else does it is irrational, then how can you say that it's immoral to not tip?

Edited by Moebius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All your "agreements" certainly are possible, although they're all wrong.

I am not saying "this is possibly what the agreement is" I am saying "these are possible agreements you can make." Given the nature of Man and his interaction with other men what makes it physically impossible that he can make an implied agreement? Nothing. The set of agreements I have listed in post #152 is the set that includes the likely agreements you may choose to make with a pizza delivery company.

The agreement the customer makes with the pizza parlor is this: I give you X amount of dollars for a pizza to be delivered to my house, and on top of that I may or may not give a tip depending on service and my mood or values. The customer makes NO agreement, implicit or explicit, with the delivery man.

I fundamentally disagree with your argument of tipping being a social custom. As far as I know, the social custom is that the customer has a right to tip if they liked the service, not an obligation. The fact that most people do it simply mean that most of them either liked the service, are generous, or are irrationally following the "I do it because everyone else does it" mentality.

You are saying that you are entering Agreement #1, while I think its clear that you are entering into Agreement #3 if you order a Pizza in the United States. This is one of the steps in my argument, showing that if you evade the social convention that exists in the United States that you are still wrong. (Once again, refer to post #152)

The agreement the delivery man makes with the pizza parlor is this: I agree to accept X amount of dollars to deliver pizzas, and on top of that I also get the tips, if and when I'm tipped.

You are saying the nature of the agreement between the pizza owner and the driver for the delivery of your pizza is Agreement #1B.(please look at post #152 and confirm this so we both know what we are discussing) I say that no person would enter into Agreement #1B if he knew that this is the agreement. Would you sell someone a product if you knew you would not get a payment? Would a taxi cab driver drop you somewhere if he knew you did not recognize the implied agreement that his services will be paid for? You are not following the virtue of Honesty by hiring someone under this condition.

Are you seriously trying to argue that the pizza parlor conned you into delivering the pizza? And even if they did, since you're not a slave, it's up to you to quit.

I do not work at a pizza place nor in an industry where tipping is involved. Please stop addressing me like I do. I simply found the dismissal of implied agreements a dismissal of reality ("reality should be like this, contracts should be like this.. so I am going to pretend like they are like this")

Edited by badkarma556

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are saying that you are entering Agreement #1, while I think its clear that you are entering into Agreement #3 if you order a Pizza in the United States.
You are simply mistaken about one aspect of the agreement, which is the clause 'there is an unstated (but understood) agreement that you will pay a fee "the tip" to the driver that is approximately 20% of the bill unless you are not satisfied with the service'. If you take that out, that would be an accurate understanding of the agreement that actually exists in the US. I don't just think it's clear that you are wrong that your invention, Agreement 3, exists in the US, I know that you are wrong. Since your foundational assumption is self-evidently false, you can't really expect to get anywhere further with that argument, can you? That would be a violation of the fundamental implicit agreement that you've entered into, which is that you will not promulgate silly ideas on this board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we're talking about here is whether not tipping is moral right?

As far as I can tell, your argument boils down to this: Most people in America tip, therefore tipping is customary, therefore it is an implicit contract, therefore violating it is dishonest, therefore not tipping is immoral. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Your basic premise then, is that not tipping is immoral because everyone else in America does it.

My position is that doing something only because everyone else does is irrational, therefore whether something is a custom or not is irrelevant because I am a reasoning being pursuing my rational self- interest. So again, unless you're going to argue that "doing something because everyone else does" is NOT irrational, your argument doesn't stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you are saying it is not physically possible to have an implied agreement with someone. This is different from saying that it is not possible for the government to enforce it, or that you would rather not enter into an implied agreement.

Not quite. My point was not that it is not physically possible to have an implied agreement or even an implied agreement based upon custom. That does not necessarily mean that any custom involving more than one person is necessarily an implied agreement. So what is it about some customs that might make them implied agreements.

If you look at the legal aspect of an implied agreement, it requires some action to be taken that indicates you intend to imply an agreement. This action may be a customary action, but it preceeds the actual exchange of any sort. That is the action defines the agreement, and while the action may be taken as a customary sign, the agreement itself can't just be understood by custom alone as you're claiming.

So, if I call up and order a pizza for delivery, that is an implied contract between me and the pizza company. That action confirms my intent to pay for the pizza when it arrives. I can't claim that I never intended to pay for the pizza when it arrives. The custom defines what the action means, not what the contract means. What is the separate action that I take, that implies that I intend to enter into a contract with the delivery person?

Examples that come to mind:

2) You get in a cab and tell the driver you want to go downtown. The driver does not tell you the price until you get there. "What?!" you say, "I didn't explicitly agree to pay you for driving me somewhere." What claim does the driver have on your money? What is the basis for the contract?.

Perfect example of an implied contract, as I've stated it, not as you've stated it. Getting in the cab and requesting a desination is an action (customarily done at the beginning of the transaction) that indicates that I intend to pay the cabbie when I've arrived. The action is customary. The action defines the contract. The contract cannot be "customary" in and of itself without the action. That is there aren't "understood" implied contracts. There are implied contracts where the action taken implies one parties intent to enter into it.

As a parrallel what action implies that I intend to tip the cabbie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, if you did read it, you certainly didn't respond to it. You just asserted your own position again. And, as Kendall points out, your idea leads to an unknowable complex social universe in which you are morally (not just socially) obligated to do things you didn't agree to simply because lots of other people suddenly decided to do them.

Yeah, that's what I'm getting at. A contract can't float out in space, or society, and then bind me to it. That's what "understood" contract means. It is a completely external claim which I never entered into. There is no volition on my part. It says in effect, I am bound to becuase other people do it.

I still maintain that considering the fact that you are owed something as a result of social convention and nothing more is a facade to give oneself a sense of entitlement that isnt' justified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hard to tell if there's no quote or "According to..." line.

The post before yours was addressed to me, and you posted just before I did. It's kind of a pain to quote when he writes an entire essay every time he responds.

Although I would have thought its obvious who I was talking to if you read the a couple of posts up...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The post before yours was addressed to me, and you posted just before I did. It's kind of a pain to quote when he writes an entire essay every time he responds.

Just a simple suggestion. You can use it if you like. Yes, quoting can be a hassle when it's big post you're responding to, but because we are sometimes posting simultaneously, assuming your post will end up butted up to the one you are responding to is dangerous.

Might I suggest a simple addressing to start your post, as in a letter:

"badkarma,"

"Hi badkarma,"

"Dear badkarma," (kind of corny but it works)

"As near as I can tell, badkarma said,"

etc.

Takes no time, easy to do, and makes any general "you"'s in the post obvious. I forget to do this sometimes too, but makes things much clearer.

Edited by KendallJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will respond to your points in a moment, but first I want to clear up my post #152 so you can be more clear what you are arguing against. I have made two arguments in that post that I feel have not been defeated.

The relevant entities in the analysis are (you) the customer, the driver, the product and service, the payment, and the owner.

When I said "implicit" before I meant "implied"; sorry about that I know its a significant difference.

Argument A

1) There is such an entity as an "implied agreement"

2) An implied agreement can be established by custom

3) There is an agreement between you and the owner

4) "Pizza Delivery" occurs so often in the US that is has become a partially explicit (stated) agreement and partially implied

5) Ignoring the implied portion of the agreement constitutes a breach of (4)

Argument B

1) Assume there is no such entity as "implied agreement" or that you have not entered into one

2) From (1) you have actually entered into an explicit (stated) agreement with the owner where you will be delivered pizza by an employee who will lose money by doing so (his costs will exceed his income)

3) No employee who is aware of (2) would willingly enter into it

4) By (2) and (3), the employee is not willingly delivering you a pizza

5) By (4), some sort of coercion is involved (force, dishonesty, etc)

6a) Assume coercion is not involved

7a) (5) and (6a) contradict, so (1) must be false

6b) from post #147, the owner of the business does not insulate you from the mechanism used to provide the services

7b) from (5) and (6b), you are acting unethically

I hope that clears things up.

Yeah, that's what I'm getting at. A contract can't float out in space, or society, and then bind me to it. That's what "understood" contract means. It is a completely external claim which I never entered into. There is no volition on my part. It says in effect, I am bound to becuase other people do it.

I still maintain that considering the fact that you are owed something as a result of social convention and nothing more is a facade to give oneself a sense of entitlement that isnt' justified.

You are denying Argument A, (1) and (2). I think I have addressed these sufficiently and I don't really have time to address them again right now. I will again in a later post.

As far as I can tell, your argument boils down to this: Most people in America tip, therefore tipping is customary, therefore it is an implicit contract, therefore violating it is dishonest, therefore not tipping is immoral. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

This is essentially Argument A, yes.

My position is that doing something only because everyone else does is irrational,

This criticism of to the idea of an implied agreement established by custom is insufficient. You do not enter into this because everyone else does it, but because everyone else understands it. This is the "if everyone else jumped off a bridge would you?" argument. This is not an "if and only if" statement. Although doing something only because many other people do it is irrational, the fact that you are doing something that many other people do does not make it irrational.

therefore whether something is a custom or not is irrelevant because I am a reasoning being pursuing my rational self- interest. So again, unless you're going to argue that "doing something because everyone else does" is NOT irrational, your argument doesn't stand.

This conclusion only follows from your idea that "If and only if I am doing something that everyone else does, I am doing something irrational." I think by examining it you can see why that statement is wrong.

You are simply mistaken about one aspect of the agreement, which is the clause 'there is an unstated (but understood) agreement that you will pay a fee "the tip" to the driver that is approximately 20% of the bill unless you are not satisfied with the service'. If you take that out, that would be an accurate understanding of the agreement that actually exists in the US. I don't just think it's clear that you are wrong that your invention, Agreement 3, exists in the US, I know that you are wrong. Since your foundational assumption is self-evidently false, you can't really expect to get anywhere further with that argument, can you?

You are debating Argument A, point (4). Obviously we can debate the identity of the agreement between you and the company in the US in circles, so before we embark on that please look at Argument B again. (The summary I put at the top of this post is only a guide, please reference my post #152)

That would be a violation of the fundamental implicit agreement that you've entered into, which is that you will not promulgate silly ideas on this board.

I think Ad Hominem is uncalled for. If you just want to "agree to disagree" I am fine with that, but I am fairly certain I am right about this.

Edit: spelling

Edited by badkarma556

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Argument A

1) There is such an entity as an "implied agreement"

2) An implied agreement can be established by custom

3) There is an agreement between you and the owner

4) "Pizza Delivery" occurs so often in the US that is has become a partially explicit (stated) agreement and partially implied

5) Ignoring the implied portion of the agreement constitutes a breach of (4)

1) yes

2) no. Action establishes an implied agreement. An action may be customary, or it's meaning may be established by custom. An implied agreement cannot be established (or "understood") by custom alone.

3) yes, there is an agreement between me and the owner. pizza for a price.

4) no, see 2)

5) if would, if there is an implied agreement, which there is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am working as a waiter while I apply to jobs more suited to my interests. None of my customers owe me anything except not to be a jerk. (Though I admit I have not fully integrated this conclusion emotionally. I do sometimes become angry when I do not receive a tip for great service.*)

At work I concern myself only with doing my job to the best of my ability. In two months, and with no previous serving experience, my managers and many customers say I have become the best server in the place. I am pleasant, funny, and I realize that it is my job to do anything you want that my employer allows me to do. My manager says many people have told her they only come to our particular location because of me.

One policy I adopted for myself is that I do not count my tips until I get home. When at work, I want to be focusing on work, not on counting every dollar as it comes in. I have found this policy to be a tremendous psychological benefit.

I have noticed there are many regulars about whom other servers complain. The complaint is that the customers are very demanding (e.g. constant refills) and don't tip much, if anything. Funny, I get their refills when they want them, and I'm my usual conversational, funny self, and even the tightest among them at least leave me a buck or two. Hell, when I'm obviously swamped, they'll usually tell me to just get their refills whenever I have time. Sometimes I take them up on their offer and do other tasks first, but other times I get them as soon as they ask.

I don't "expect" a tip from any particular customer, as a general matter, in that I don't think any customer is obligated to give me anything. I "expect" a tip from particular customers in that I am generally able to predict what they will leave for me based on previous experiences. I would say my "expectation" overall is that I'll receive a certain amount in combined wages and tips, and if that expectation is frustrated, I'll find another part-time grunt job to hold me over until I find something more in line with my goals.

*One time I was downright livid. I spent over an hour on only one table because they had over 20 people and not surprisingly required constant service. Almost a $300 tab. They left me nothing. Upon reflection, I realized that my frustration was more with my employer who does not add a service charge to large groups. Seriously, man, if you're going to let one table monopolize me for over an hour, can't you have a policy that makes sure I get paid more than $2.13 an hour for it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am working as a waiter while I apply to jobs more suited to my interests. None of my customers owe me anything except not to be a jerk. (Though I admit I have not fully integrated this conclusion emotionally. I do sometimes become angry when I do not receive a tip for great service.*)

At work I concern myself only with doing my job to the best of my ability. In two months, and with no previous serving experience, my managers and many customers say I have become the best server in the place. I am pleasant, funny, and I realize that it is my job to do anything you want that my employer allows me to do. My manager says many people have told her they only come to our particular location because of me.

Well, then they can't make a Simpsons or South Park episode on you. Common human decency doesn't seem to sell well any longer. It sells well with me, however.

*One time I was downright livid. I spent over an hour on only one table because they had over 20 people and not surprisingly required constant service. Almost a $300 tab. They left me nothing. Upon reflection, I realized that my frustration was more with my employer who does not add a service charge to large groups. Seriously, man, if you're going to let one table monopolize me for over an hour, can't you have a policy that makes sure I get paid more than $2.13 an hour for it?

I'm confused by this, isn't minimum wage over $5 an hour? Not that I'm endorsing minimum wage, mind you, it's just that Congress seems to make a point of voting for minimum wage increases seemingly every year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...