So, what is the solution then?
- No one go to restaurants anymore.
- Employer probably has some form of insurance and will get paid out after claiming low demand for the service in the area.
- Employees still get fired.
- Community lose a restaurant and there is a lower chance of another one coming.
- Go but don't tip.
- Worker gets screwed because their wages aren't worth the work without tips.
- worker either needs to quite or unionize (strike) to get a higher pay.
- Worker is afraid(?) to do that so blames the costumer for not tipping.
- Grass roots campaign to change tipping laws entirely
- Workers are against it because they tend to make more with tips than with flat wages because some people can and will tipe very high.
- Owners are against it because they lose more money on labor.
- Costumers are for it because it doesn't guild them into having to pay an undisclosed fee with a guilt trip assigned. However, they are unlikely to rally in favor in larger numbers than employers and employees because it does affect their day to day life as much.
It may be just me, but this seems like turning serfs on serfs while everyone goes to the powers that be rather than actually addressing the issue. I mean, I'm fine with just eating out less and tipping when I do, but I don't see how not tipping is morally wrong when they entered system was about morally exploiting the costumer.
Also, the process only exists because restauranteurs had difficulty paying their employees during the great depression and encouraged them to accept payment To Insure Promptness (TIP). Can we just go back to a system when I only tip when my food is delivered quickly and the service is above average rather than to prevent people from spitting in my food because that is somehow now socially acceptable?
Am I missing something though? Because this whole thing seems like a less horrific version for rape being an implied additional punishment of jail in the US.