Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I really think this is a one-off incident. Rieux, you should keep in mind that the servers here are not up-selling you so they can get additional tip money - that, in and of itself, is a big deal, and something we should all be supporting. It could ultimately lead to a "server" being a profession rather than a job, and that's what I've been fighting for over the past ten years.

I'm not following you Don.

Isn't a server going to make more money if (s)he upsells you on 2 apps instead of 3, or the most expensive entrée vs a cheaper one? How does the addition of a percentage based service charge remove the motivation to pad the bill?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not following you Don.

Isn't a server going to make more money if (s)he upsells you on 2 apps instead of 3, or the most expensive entrée vs a cheaper one? How does the addition of a percentage based service charge remove the motivation to pad the bill?

Because (unless I'm misunderstanding how they're distributing their service charge) this 18% does not go to the server; it goes to the restaurant, and the restaurant either:

1) keeps it (assuming their normally tipped employees are being paid a higher wage that accounts for the absence of tips), or

2) distributes it among all the normally tipped employees - perhaps equally, perhaps based on some other (presumably equitable) system.

What that 18% service charge *doesn't do* is go straight to the server. And that's why I think it's a giant leap in the right direction.

Now, I'm not saying it's impossible that a restaurant couldn't take advantage of normally tipped employees using this method, but there is *absolutely NO* reason to think Sally's Middle Name is doing such a thing - in fact, this discussion probably shouldn't even be in this thread because of "guilt by association." I'm all for Sally's Middle Name using this method, and I trust they that they're doing the right thing with this service charge; if they weren't, word would get out quickly in this internet-driven world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DonRocks, on 21 Jul 2015 - 2:09 PM, said:
Because (unless I'm misunderstanding how they're distributing their service charge) this 18% does not go to the server; it goes to the restaurant, and the restaurant either:
 
1) keeps it (assuming their normally tipped employees are being paid a higher wage that accounts for the absence of tips), or
2) distributes it among all the normally tipped employees - perhaps equally, perhaps based on some other (presumably equitable) system.
 
What that 18% service charge *doesn't do* is go straight to the server. And that's why I think it's a giant leap in the right direction.
 
Now, I'm not saying it's impossible that a restaurant couldn't take advantage of normally tipped employees using this method, but there is *absolutely NO* reason to think Sally's Middle Name is doing such a thing - in fact, this discussion probably shouldn't even be in this thread because of "guilt by association." I'm all for Sally's Middle Name using this method, and I trust they that they're doing the right thing with this service charge; if they weren't, word would get out quickly in this internet-driven world.
 
According to Jessica Sidman's article:
 
Quote
At their new H Street NE restaurant, Sally's Middle Name, owners Sam and Aphra Adkins have decided to forgo the traditional gratuity system. Instead, an 18 percent "service charge" will be automatically added to every check. That money will be split evenly between front and back of the house employees.
...
No one at Sally's Middle Name will make less than $10 per hour plus their share of the service charge.
 

Sorry, but I believe the average diner will simply see this as forced tipping.  How is this different from the "18% gratuity for parties of 6 or more" which smacks of "we don't trust you to tip appropriately in these situations, so we'll force it."  This seems forced and while the intent to pay the staff better is honorable, the execution seems doomed to fail.   
 
And I don't think it will have an appreciable difference in terms of "upsell" for a few reasons:
1. Aren't there other places that pool tips, or at least share tips (i.e., the busser is tipped by the waiter)?
2. They are still incentivized, just in a less direct way
3. There is a lot of research (you can Google) that suggests that the extra $1.50 isn't an incentive.  What might be a more powerful incentive is that the upsell is taught and then recognized by management, and a pat on the back is earned.   Seems a little counter-intuitive but I believe the 'upsell' is due to a list of factors, of which the $1.50 incentive is low on that list, if it is at all.   
 
So, the real root question.  Why don't they just build it into the price?  It can't be simply the accounting effort.   I suspect rather it is a tax issue - they'd rather not pay the tax on the revenue as if it were like the rest of the f&b revenue.  That's my guess and if I'm wrong...well, again, the execution of this led me to think about why the rigmarole.  As noted above, just charge 3.80 and give me a drink that costs me 3.80.   Every other retailer has figured this out.
 
(edit - PS, I've never been to this place.  I'm commenting on the concepts only. I am for the removal of the whole tipping genre...but this doesn't seem the way to do it)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I believe the average diner will simply see this as forced tipping.

...

I am for the removal of the whole tipping genre.

Like it or not, removal of the whole tipping genre will involve raising prices by 18%, in some form or another.

By all means, come up with better suggestions on how to implement it - I'm sure the industry will be interested in hearing your viewpoints.

I've been saying for years that I will support any restaurants that take the risk to do away with this ridiculous tipping system we have. I have done so, consistently, with The Swiss Bakery, and will continue do so with Sally's Middle Name. It won't have any effect on their Dining Guide rating, that much I can promise you, but I will continue to be a vocal advocate of restaurants that provide better base pay for the people that need it the most: prep cooks, line cooks, dishwashers, runners, busers, hosts, and even sous chefs and AGMs (AGMs being the profession that perhaps gets hosed most of all because they're often college-educated, don't get paid squat, work 60-70 hours a week, and do not participate in the tipping system). Not chefs, not GMs, not bartenders, and not servers, many of whom make six figures while their harder-working co-workers are living in poverty, often without insurance, retirement, or other benefits. Their bodies give out by the time they're 50 years old, and then they're replaced with younger workers and forgotten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like it or not, removal of the whole tipping genre will involve raising prices by 18%, in some form or another.

By all means, come up with better suggestions on how to implement it - I'm sure the industry will be interested in hearing your viewpoints.

I've been saying for years that I will support any restaurants that take the risk to do away with this ridiculous tipping system we have. I have done so, consistently, with The Swiss Bakery, and will continue do so with Sally's Middle Name. It won't have any effect on their Dining Guide rating, that much I can promise you, but I will continue to be a vocal advocate of restaurants that provide better base pay for the people that need it the most: prep cooks, line cooks, dishwashers, runners, busers, hosts, and even sous chefs and AGMs (AGMs being the profession that perhaps gets hosed most of all because they're often college-educated, don't get paid squat, work 60-70 hours a week, and do not participate in the tipping system). Not chefs, not GMs, not bartenders, and not servers, many of whom make six figures while their harder-working co-workers are living in poverty, often without insurance, retirement, or other benefits. Their bodies give out by the time they're 50 years old, and then they're replaced with younger workers and forgotten.

I don't mind prices going up by 18%.  Or by 400% or whatever.

The solution is simple:

- List the price of the menu items.

- Have a no-tip policy.

That's it.

Begin to include separate line items for "service charges" and such and now I'm feeling nickle-and-dimed, and I'm also feeling like the option to not tip was taken from me.   Just charge $x for an item, with no special extra charges, and I'm fine (no matter what the price is for that item).

This is perception, not math.

I get that when I pay for an item, part of what I'm paying goes to purchase the ingredients, part goes to pay the rent, part goes to make the next payment on the restaurant owner's new car.   That's fine and true of any retail store.  I also get that some restaurants cost more than others, sometimes MUUUCCCHHH more.   The value is in the experience, to include the food, the ambience, the service and such.

So why am I asked to segregate a line item specifically for the service in a place that is touting to be an alternative to tipping?   Is the restaurant trying to meet a particular price point for the menu items?   Are they trying to avoid revenue taxes by treating that money differently?

Flip it over - let's say you go to a hardware store and get some advice, then you get a 18% service charge added at checkout...what?

How about they just raise their prices accordingly and leave it at that?

Decent restaurants aren't super price sensitive.  They aren't.  I'm not saying they can't charge just anything...but as the Pittsburg example shows us, I'm sure there could be 18% or more room for price increases if the perception is positive...and isn't the restaurant business, as a hospitality industry, heavily reliant upon good perception?

18% service charges aren't the antidote to tipping.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind prices going up by 18%.  Or by 400% or whatever.

The solution is simple:

- List the price of the menu items.

- Have a no-tip policy.

That's it.

Begin to include separate line items for "service charges" and such and now I'm feeling nickle-and-dimed, and I'm also feeling like the option to not tip was taken from me.   Just charge $x for an item, with no special extra charges, and I'm fine (no matter what the price is for that item).

This is perception, not math.

I get that when I pay for an item, part of what I'm paying goes to purchase the ingredients, part goes to pay the rent, part goes to make the next payment on the restaurant owner's new car.   That's fine and true of any retail store.  I also get that some restaurants cost more than others, sometimes MUUUCCCHHH more.   The value is in the experience, to include the food, the ambience, the service and such.

So why am I asked to segregate a line item specifically for the service in a place that is touting to be an alternative to tipping?   Is the restaurant trying to meet a particular price point for the menu items?   Are they trying to avoid revenue taxes by treating that money differently?

Flip it over - let's say you go to a hardware store and get some advice, then you get a 18% service charge added at checkout...what?

How about they just raise their prices accordingly and leave it at that?

Decent restaurants aren't super price sensitive.  They aren't.  I'm not saying they can't charge just anything...but as the Pittsburg example shows us, I'm sure there could be 18% or more room for price increases if the perception is positive...and isn't the restaurant business, as a hospitality industry, heavily reliant upon good perception?

18% service charges aren't the antidote to tipping.

I don't disagree with you, but nobody has addressed what I've said about taxes being an add-on, about gas stations being leaders in "what you see is what you pay," etc. From the consumer's point of view, it shouldn't matter if it's a tip, a service charge, or a tax.

An irony here is that the average consumer has *no clue* what they pay per gallon in taxes, despite it being clearly written on the pump. Similarly, the average diner will have no idea what they're paying in "service charge" if that's folded into the prices.

The only thing that's becoming clear to me is that no one solution will please everybody. From an end-user point of view, this is really a very simple issue, without a lot of variables - it's just a matter of whether you prefer things (and which things) to be itemized, or lumped together. I think! :)

For me, personally? I don't mind having 1) item cost 2) service charge (clearly conveyed) 3) tax (clearly conveyed) as three separate things on the bill. It's also clear that you prefer not to have it that way - I could happily live with your method as well. (As an aside, one argument against having tax lumped in is that you don't know how much to tip. Oops! There's that "T"-word again. -_-)

I guess what I would prefer the most is what you're proposing: "What you see is what you pay," just like at the gas pump, though I would appreciate being told what the tax rate is (it varies so much from jurisdiction-to-jurisdiction that it's difficult to keep it all straight). In other words ... *I agree with you*! There, how's that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with you, but nobody has addressed what I've said about taxes being an add-on, about gas stations being leaders in "what you see is what you pay," etc. From the consumer's point of view, it shouldn't matter if it's a tip, a service charge, or a tax.

It shouldn't, but it does.

People rarely act perfectly rationally in economic situations.    We'd like to think that consumers don't care except for the bottom line, but they do.   If I pay $20 for a meal, should it matter how that was derived?   Theoretically, it shouldn't.  Practically, it does.

So let's address this from the perception standpoint.

1.  Taxes - taxes are different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, are a legal mandate and we all generally dislike them.  They also tend to be minor (less than 10%) and tend to be added as a separate lines in many, many places.  I'm conditioned to 'roll over' on taxes.   In fact, when I see "prices include all taxes" I tend to think it is because the place has manual registers or does rapid, cash based transactions like at an ice cream stand or a gas station.

2.  Gas stations - I think you mean that gas stations don't add an additional tax line, or any other line.  I agree with that approach where feasible.  I also sense that gas taxes are so high that having a separate tax added at the end might be really bad for business.  And it is a fairly unique business - fairly heavily regulated and VERY commoditized.  Their price sensitivity is down to the penny - the opposite of restaurants.

To me, the answer is simple:  If we want to do away with tipping, then the whole concept needs to go away...both in front of the customer (ie, no service charge) and with the employees (salaries and maybe profit sharing, not splitting service fees.)

The service fee smacks of one thing to me:  Ownership that is protecting itself first.  My guess is that $1 collected as a service fee and distributed amongst the servers is treated differently from a tax perspective than $1 collected as a sale and filtered to employees through a salary.   If so, owners would argue that $1 that isn't taxed (or taxed less) means more they can flow to the employees.  BUT - I'd say it means they get to avoid the tax in the first place and it leaves me (the patron) with a sour taste in my mouth, as if I'd been asked to pay some part of the bill in cash / under the table.   It also means that the servers still aren't "solved" here:

- Their income is still variable to that week's collection of fees and is never predictable,

- worse, it is now capped at 18% and distributed evenly between the weakest and strongest performers.

So I go back to the original question:

If a place is serious about supporting the waitstaff - why can't they do so with a real no-tipping policy and real salaries for the employees?   Sure, there's risk in that - but there's risk in every such business and the owner's risk is offset by their unlimited potential to pocket all the profit, franchise, etc.   Why is this the one line of business that seems to want to pawn so much of the risk down to the wait staff?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be clear and fair - I do think the service charge is an improvement over traditional tipping.  I just suspect that it is 20% of the way there - and has the downsides I've indicated above.

And I feel restaurants have more pricing flexibility than they think - I'm not mentally haggling over a $14 vs $17 entree, especially if I know there's no tip or fee coming at the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with jayandstacey, a mandatory 18% service charge is just another way of imposing the cost of labor onto customers, while fooling the naive ones into believing that X dish or Y drink is going to be cheaper than it will be on the bill.

If sales tax was an issue (I don't think it's one either, other business transactions are taxed on the full amount "“ though sales tax for goods versus no sales tax for services does get fuzzy), there's an easy solution.  On the menu, list the pre-tax and pre-tip price (ugly number), and the all-inclusive price next to it (whole number).  On the top, say that the all-inclusive price is what you will pay, period.  That all inclusive price is what you would be quoted in many civilized countries (where they'll also tell you the price includes VAT).

Having the menu tell customers that they don't have to tip but not mention the mandatory 18% service charge, smacks of bait and switch, and certainly makes me less likely to patronize this place.  It's a somewhat less offensive version of Dan O'Brien saying on his website that he'll cook Seasonal Pantry suppers, then being shocked! shocked! that people are upset when he's not there to cook.  It's the sort of blaming the customer (for having reasonable expectations) behavior that can turn me off of establishments.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading all these posts, I'm going to have to agree that the "18% service charge will be added to each check" is akin to forced tipping...much like large parties at other restaurants are usually forced to pay a fixed gratuity.  

If they want to get rid of tipping then bump up the prices.

Given the price of dining in DC and given the prices listed above in Don's photos would anyone care if the grilled squash at $5 was priced at $5.90...heck round it up to $6.  Beets for $6 or $7.08.  On today's menu, the most expensive item by far is the sockeye salmon at $17, would anyone not order it if it was priced at $20.06, which for DC is a fairly reasonable price for sockeye salmon.

It would appear that for many of the menu items listed above in Don's photos it means bumping up the prices about $1.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get you guys. Do you make this stink when a plumber has a "Labor" line-item on the invoice? If they didn't have a service charge line item on the receipt, it would probably lead to a lot of confusion and endless explaining to diners that they don't need to leave an "extra tip". Or people actually leaving an "extra tip" without knowing that it wasn't necessary. Why are you jumping to the least favorable conclusion?

I did see the language that Rieux saw one night, and agree it is unfortunate. But to make the leap that the owners must be hiding something is just unfounded.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of digital ink was spilled on this board about the potential tax implications of the service charge...all without actually knowing what they are.  It seems like something that one might choose to seek out the answer to before getting upset and implying shadiness on the part of a restaurant's owners in a public forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get you guys.  Do you make this stink when a plumber has a "Labor" line-item on the invoice?  If they didn't have a service charge line item on the receipt, it would probably lead to a lot of confusion and endless explaining to diners that they don't need to leave an extra tip.  Or people actually leaving an "extra tip" without knowing that it wasn't necessary.  Why are you jumping to the least favorable conclusion?

I did see the language that Rieux saw one night, and agree it is unfortunate.  But to make the leap that the owners must be hiding something is just unfounded.

Depends how expensive the "labor" line-item is!

In reality it would be pretty easy.  On the bill, instead of a tip line, just have a short statement about the no tipping policy.  It could be as short as "No tipping please"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reality it would be pretty easy.  On the bill, instead of a tip line, just have a short statement about the no tipping policy.  It could be as short as "No tipping please"

That's a reasonable alternative, but that still invites confusion as to why there is no tipping, and endless conversation from well-meaning concerned diners of the "are you sure?" variety.  And I am not a fan of short statements or manifestos when I go out to eat, a bit pretentious.  A service charge, especially with the 18% specificity, is the most transparent and concise way to communicate that no tips are necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a reasonable alternative, but that still invites confusion as to why there is no tipping, and endless conversation from well-meaning concerned diners of the "are you sure?" variety.  And I am not a fan of short statements or manifestos when I go out to eat, a bit pretentious.  A service charge, especially with the 18% specificity, is the most transparent and concise way to communicate that no tips are necessary.  

Instead, it invites cynicism for some.  Which is my point - since changing the model will cause confusion no matter which path is taken - why not take the path that leads to happy surprises (no, you really don't have to tip..), instead of unhappy ones (well, when we said no tipping, we meant instead it comes as a service charge)?

The cruise industry has a similar 'auto-tip' process.  But even there, they have an opt-out path - you can ask to have the tip removed or modified.  Is there an opt-out here?  Should there be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a reasonable alternative, but that still invites confusion as to why there is no tipping, and endless conversation from well-meaning concerned diners of the "are you sure?" variety.  And I am not a fan of short statements or manifestos when I go out to eat, a bit pretentious.  A service charge, especially with the 18% specificity, is the most transparent and concise way to communicate that no tips are necessary.  

In today's dining world of farm-to-table locavore-ism, artisanal ice, house bottled water, and curated cocktail lists, no tipping please would be the least pretentious item on the bill!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, in the case of plumbers, those are labor rates based on hours spent on the job - not a markup over the cost of the materials (as with the service charge).   In the case of restaurants, that would in some ways make more sense - a "wait rate" that is $x per hour, charged by how long you sit at your table and how many people you have.   Isn't that in some ways more in line with their actual delivered service, and the opportunity cost of the waitstaff?   Why wasn't that model chosen? 

I actually thought of this and agree with you in theory.  But a plumber services one customer at a time, whereas a server takes on say 5 tables simultaneously.  Tables are going to get grumpy if a server spends more time at one table than another, it won't be a very relaxed atmosphere which hurts the diner.  Also, are we going to keep stopwatches going?  Are we going to agree on the stop/end time?  Is it fair that I pay more for a medium steak rather than a rare steak?  I agree that it is more fair under your model, but I think that would really ruin an experience to be so cognizant of the time spent on food delivery and how much time we are taking up at a table.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the restaurant perspective, the implementation perspective, the employee perspective, and then on how to articulate this program to the public the very interesting and revealing story about Bar Marco in Pittsburgh in the Strip District is very fascinating.  Weekly profits tripled.   Revenues increased by a lot.  Employees are motivated.  And employees are deeply involved in all the elements of the change from tipping to no tipping with prices augmented by a service charge.

For things like this to work, its all about the implementation.

I actually have no problems with tipping.  I'd have no problems with going to a non tipping place.  I also have no problems with "up selling".  If you visit amazon and search on certain books, Amazon is going to suggest other books; if you buy shoes at a store they might also try and sell you socks, pants or a dress; when you buy an electronic gadget they are going to try and sell you insurance; and so on and so on.   Were I a FOH staff at Bar Marco I'd encourage you to try and additional dish or drink, with or without tip.  Were I working at Bar Marco, and you expressed that you had a limited budget for that evening I'd do everything possible to help you choose the best dishes for that budget.  If you really enjoyed your meal you'd probably come back again and bring friends.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this thread still about Sally's Middle Name? This is getting more annoying than the practice being discussed.

I was just signing on to ask peoples' opinions about what I should do with the service charge-related posts. I think that once the discussion dies down, I should move them to another thread, because before you know it, a second restaurant is going to come along and do the same thing, and all of a sudden this is a bigger issue than Sally's Middle Name. But I was going to let it die down first [the irony for me, as moderator, is that people who have chastised me in the past for splitting off posts - hence "putting a damper on discussions," when all I'm trying to do is organize things - are generally members who haven't been very active in many years. Anyway, as a compromise, I'm trying to wait until things die down before splitting things off into their proper home. And in this case, I think it's a good call - although this discussion is reaching its natural end, it was a lively and useful conversation for awhile.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually thought of this and agree with you in theory.  But a plumber services one customer at a time, whereas a server takes on say 5 tables simultaneously.  Tables are going to get grumpy if a server spends more time at one table than another, it won't be a very relaxed atmosphere which hurts the diner.  Also, are we going to keep stopwatches going?  Are we going to agree on the stop/end time?  Is it fair that I pay more for a medium steak rather than a rare steak?  I agree that it is more fair under your model, but I think that would really ruin an experience to be so cognizant of the time spent on food delivery and how much time we are taking up at a table.

Yeah, that's kind of my point - although we end up in the same place (a total that includes money that will go toward the service) - we would not accept such a system in a restaurant as it gives us the impression that at least something's "off" and at worst we're being taken. It's weird and makes me ask questions, which is not always desirable when talking $$.

But if we say the presentation doesn't matter; only the total: then this model of service paid by the diner/hour would be just as viable as any other, right? My suggestion is that the presentation does matter, even if we end at the same total.

Interestingly, I might see where Sally's has a unique problem where the prices seem SO low that maybe people would be less likely to tip - like they were in a fast food environment. Again, I'm all for ensuring a wait staff is paid an honorable wage and not penalized when a cheapskate visits. Their system is fair in that regard and isn't horribly bad. I just think the Pittsburg example shows how far that can go if tips are eliminated entirely, to (apparently) everyone's benefit.

In the US, I experienced a true "no tip" situation at the full service meal counter at Wegmans. We can't compare a Wegmans to a non-chain restaurant.... I remember getting my tip back with a feeling like "oh yeah, Wegmans employees are notoriously happy- and now I am too"

That, and McDonalds :)

I've never met Don yet I seem to make him mad occasionally. [Not true at all. :) DR]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As more restaurants go to a no-tipping policy, it would be nice to see states pass legislation requiring menus to state whether servers are receiving tipped worker wages or not.  There are so many order-at-the-counter places that have tip jars out, adding to the confusion.   Requiring a restaurant to list how much it pays its servers/hour might also have the benefit of educating foreign visitors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, legislation would make it easier but I don't actually think it would be that difficult for restaurants to handle it internally if they want to.  Service included written on the menu as well as removing the gratuity line from the Credit Card receipt would make it pretty clear for most people.  (I say most because there might be some people that still pay their tab with that archaic thing called "cash")

I was in Europe for a little while in August, some places have moved away from service included, but they all have the tip line which I found really annoying and frustrating, I see this as a great solution for tourists and locals as like.  They simply sign the amount that is stated and if they ask about tipping can then be told that the restaurant is service included and they don't accept tips.

On a side note....I'll never forget our experience in Beijing where we got chased down by a server.  We knew it's not a tipping culture but we were in a very off the beaten path restaurant that did everything they could to accommodate the language barrier.  Feeling like we were a pain in the a@# we left a tip on the table.  Our server chased us down to give it back to us, and even though we tried again she made it obvious that she was refusing to take it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is how you do it:

"Danny Meyer Restaurants To Eliminate Tipping" by Pete Wells on nytimes.com

Just as in Europe:  One price, wages included.

But if Danny Meyer plans to keep servers' income steady and yet still significantly raise kitchen workers' pay, presumably the listed prices will have to be raised by more than 20-25%, no?

Will be interesting to watch.

Don, please feel free to move this to another thread, if appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don, please feel free to move this to another thread, if appropriate.

I will, but I want Sally's never to make another mistake with that sign again, so I'll leave it here until they read it.

They are *so close* to doing this right, and I'm pulling for them to succeed, but the wording on that chalkboard just cannot mislead the customers the way Rieux and I both saw it.

Sally's! Are you listening? You can do this! It's the path of the future and you're helping to pave it! And your food is darned good, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Bar Agricole and Trou Normand Bring Back Tipping" by Stephanie Tuder on sf.eater.com

The Conversion is going to be like switching to electric cars - it's not something the industry can just "do."

"In California, Electric Cars Outpace Plugs, and Sparks Fly" by Matt Richtel on nytimes.com

I, for one, am willing to put up with worse service for a few years at tip-free restaurants (*). Losing good servers (or those who think they're good because they make more money) is unavoidable collateral damage, and reinforces what I've been saying for years: Servers are overpaid relative to the rest of the staff. There are a lot of seriously mediocre servers out there making shockingly good incomes, while line cooks in back toil for something barely above minimum wage and have no health or disability insurance. I have been steadfast about this issue for years, and am not going to waver.

Isn't it significant that the article says they're losing servers, and not line cooks, or dishwashers, or runners?

(*) Listen up, diners: You're going to have to put up with it too; otherwise, the whole thing will fail.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say two restaurants are pretty close to equal, and we haven't had a standardize tipping policy. We can choose Rasika and Rasika West, for example. If the Palak Chaat is $10 at the place that has tipping and $12 at the place that doesn't, I'm certain that the lower cost place does better business, if the quality and food are the same. Psychology dictates that we are okay with the lower up front price, and that the tip is another segment of the meal. The restaurant that has tips will always seems less expensive, even though it isn't (unless you don't tip). If you do the inclusive service fee at the beginning, you marginalize yourself as more expensive, without necessarily adding value. If you do what Sally's did, you marginalize yourself as mandating tipping.

So... Until everyone flips, doing the service charge at the end is going to anger people that felt they didn't get good service. Doing the increased prices will marginalize the restaurant as being more expensive (a $40 steak will be $47).

My only thought would be to do what Sally's did, have the waiter briefly explain why they do it, and at the end, still offer that the patrons can reduce the service charge if they felt they were not served well. Some people will take advantage of that, most won't.

The only other better option is legislation to remove wait staff from below minimum wage group ($2.13/hr) and everyone either adds 10% with room to go up for better service, or raise the prices to get the salaries where they need to be.

Another very American problem...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say two restaurants are pretty close to equal, and we haven't had a standardize tipping policy. We can choose Rasika and Rasika West, for example. If the Palak Chaat is $10 at the place that has tipping and $12 at the place that doesn't, I'm certain that the lower cost place does better business, if the quality and food are the same. Psychology dictates that we are okay with the lower up front price, and that the tip is another segment of the meal. The restaurant that has tips will always seems less expensive, even though it isn't (unless you don't tip). If you do the inclusive service fee at the beginning, you marginalize yourself as more expensive, without necessarily adding value. If you do what Sally's did, you marginalize yourself as mandating tipping.

So... Until everyone flips, doing the service charge at the end is going to anger people that felt they didn't get good service. Doing the increased prices will marginalize the restaurant as being more expensive (a $40 steak will be $47).

My only thought would be to do what Sally's did, have the waiter briefly explain why they do it, and at the end, still offer that the patrons can reduce the service charge if they felt they were not served well. Some people will take advantage of that, most won't.

The only other better option is legislation to remove wait staff from below minimum wage group ($2.13/hr) and everyone either adds 10% with room to go up for better service, or raise the prices to get the salaries where they need to be.

Another very American problem...

Two-word reply: mink coats.

One-word reply: cigarettes.

Some ads with pictures of 60-year-old Latino dishwashers bent over because they can't stand up straight should start the process quite nicely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Presumably sales tax will apply to the whole bill, whereas we don't pay tax on tip now. So your cost of dining out will go up even more.

Fine with me, although service charges are only taxable if they're mandatory.

I look at it as overpaying $10,000 for a Prius.

"Toyota To Make Mostly Electric, Alt-Fuel Cars by 2050" by James Detar on news.investors.com

And let's not candy-coat this transition: It's going to cost us all more in the short-term.

Wouldn't I make a great (but unelectable) politician? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, oh:  Sally's thinks that its policy, in contrast to Meyer's, will be more amenable to customers:  It's "kind of our way of saying, "˜We're being open and honest with you. . . .  It's not going into our pocket.'"  Count me skeptical.  If you're so intent on assuring customers that you are paying your employees a living wage, why not simply say:  "The price for this modest plate of hash is $15.  That might seem high, but as with all of our prices, X% of the proceeds will be applied to labor costs for all our employees.  So please do not include any gratuity."

"Restaurant Industry Leader Danny Meyer Ends Tipping. Who Will Follow?" by Maura Judkis on washingtonpost.com

This is how you do it:

"Danny Meyer Restaurants To Eliminate Tipping" by Pete Wells on nytimes.com

Just as in Europe:  One price, wages included.  

But if Danny Meyer plans to keep servers' income steady and yet still significantly raise kitchen workers' pay, presumably the listed prices will have to be raised by more than 20-25%, no?

Will be interesting to watch.

Don, please feel free to move this to another thread, if appropriate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, oh:  Sally's thinks that its policy, in contrast to Meyer's, will be more amenable to customers:  It's "kind of our way of saying, "˜We're being open and honest with you. . . .  It's not going into our pocket.'"  Count me skeptical.  If you're so intent on assuring customers that you are paying your employees a living wage, why not simply say:  "The price for this modest plate of hash is $15.  That might seem high, but as with all of our prices, X% of the proceeds will be applied to labor costs for all our employees.  So please do not include any gratuity."

"Restaurant Industry Leader Danny Meyer Ends Tipping. Who Will Follow?" by Maura Judkis on washingtonpost.com

I find it somewhat ironic that we've now quoted Maura Judkis probably 10 times, she's never once quoted us that I know of (yet we've been *the* website on the front line of this issue, bar none - we're not just "reporting" on it; we've been leading the change for years).

post-2-0-51132100-1444922516_thumb.png

Sam, I know you're reading this, and I know you know that I'm pulling for you, so please listen to me: I'm telling you in no uncertain terms that Danny Meyer's way is the best way - he has thought this through, and has the nationwide clout to help pull it off. Your method is better than nothing, and it's a start, but it's really not *that* different from a customer's viewpoint, and there needs to be unified work towards an industry standard which is the simplest way possible - building everything into the price of each individual item, and clearly stating that there is no tipping accepted, is the best and simplest way possible.

I again refer everyone in Washington, DC to The Swiss Bakery who has been on the cutting edge of this issue for years.

The ultimate ideal goes one step further than Danny Meyer: include sales tax in the prices as well. Then, state clearly on the menu the percentage of the price that is represented by tax (just like they do at gas stations) - the consumer wants to know how much they're going to pay, and ultimately doesn't care where the money goes at that particular moment. That's probably asking too much, and isn't necessary, but why not get everything on the table at the same time? If you order a $170 Danny Meyer tasting menu, order a $50 bottle of wine, and bring $220 in cash, guess what?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

108 posts above and the only comment I can see from an existing restaurant operator on the pros and cons was from RJ reporting the news that 2 San Francisco restaurants reversed prior policy and returned to tipping. And that was news, not his own perspective.  (that is fine) The San Fran restaurants gave their reasons as they couldn't retain good FOH staff.  The decisions changed after 10 months of experiments.

The single experiment I've seen that seemed extremely promising was at Bar Marco in Pittsburgh.   I have not seen any follow up stories.   Was this a "real" story or not or just some planted publicity?    I question it now in that there haven't been follow ups.  OTOH it impressed me when it first came out.

Frankly I think this is an experiment that is up to the operators.  All of the comments above and specifically the one's relating to "how customers might react" are exactly the concerns that restaurateurs have to consider.   In general will it draw more customers or less?  Will it sit well with staff?  All staff; or better with some and worse with others.     Frankly its all theory until one applies it.  On top of the comments above, other issues, not yet referenced could come into play.

A couple of other points:

1.  Applying an 18% (or so)  service charge/ or just adding it into the prices and stating no tipping, actually takes from one group, the FOH staff, and gives to the BOH staff.  It helps some and hurts others  In order to not penalize the FOH staff a restaurant might need to raise prices by something closer to 30%.   I think the Meyer group referenced price increases by about 30%.

2.  The Bar Marco article referenced significant changes in staff behavior and savings on certain operating costs.   That implies tremendous effort at training, and staff buying in with significant change in behavior.  That all requires an awful lot of training, management and leadership.   I frankly think that many operators simply don't apply an enormous amount of training.  I think you can see it again and again in comments about poor service.  Some of that is a result of less than great staff and some is from a lack of training.

3.  I suspect most operators will tell you that staff turns over like crazy.  So training is difficult, time consuming, endlessly repetitive, and its often wasted as staff could turn over rapidly in a relatively short time period.   The operators would need to speak to this.  Its astonishingly inconsistent with certain places retaining staff for very long time periods and others seeing an awful lot of turnover.

4.  Its ultimately a big risk and change.  I really believe its up to the operators.  Its their money on the line.

5.  I mostly don't care about the issue.  I tend to tip close to or around industry standards.  I know its high.  I know it rewards the FOH and not the BOH and I know that isn't optimal or "fair".  It is what it is, and Simul Parikh calls it an American problem, which I guess it is.  On some occasions where I've been a regular I've tipped certain BOH personnel that I've gotten to know, but that is rare for me, and it virtually never occurs.  I suppose that makes it irrelevant.

6.  Anyway good luck to the operators who give it a shot, and for those that do, at least the BOH personnel will see some rewards for at least a period of time and possibly everyone, but for that to happen I suppose the sun, moon, other planets, and stars will have to align to create a story that reads like the Bar Marco report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was in Europe for a little while in August, some places have moved away from service included, but they all have the tip line which I found really annoying and frustrating, I see this as a great solution for tourists and locals as like.  They simply sign the amount that is stated and if they ask about tipping can then be told that the restaurant is service included and they don't accept tips.

There have been a lot of discussions on tipping on a (French) Caribbean site that I frequent and it seems that the "tips" line has started showing up on certain restaurant receipts in the last few years. Some of the frequent travelers (2 or more times a year) get very offended by this and either refuse to go to those places or refuse to tip. They see it as a blatant attempt to shake down American customers who don't know that a 20%+ tip isn't expected.

These same folks will leave 5 or so Euros in cash for the server as a thank you, but never on the credit card slip.

I don't know why or if any of this is relevant! :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly its all theory until one applies it.  

It's applied in France, and their servers, in general, are one *hell* of a lot better than ours. When I go to a restaurant in France - in the general case - I have no problem asking the server for recommendations; in the United States, I have *much* more confidence in my own ability to look around, to read the menu, and to come up with a better choice than the server recommends (in my case, which I admit is a special case, that applies to sommeliers as well).

I took a server's advice just last night, and regretted it to no end.

I can't tell you how many waitstaff (both servers and bartenders) I've come across in America who *don't even know the name of the chef*.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I meant by American problem is that we create an institution that is a lot of times not ideal, but a work around to solve a certain issue and then when it becomes unworkable, change is nearly impossible, due to the resistance of the players involved and because of severe path dependence. When international solutions are recognized and recommended, there is a consistent - "well that works great there, but it would never work here because of X, Y, and Z"

See: health care, tort, broadband/Internet, public education...

If everyone isn't subject to the same minimum wage policies, what is the real incentive for restaurants to move to this model? It's noble for Meyer or Bar Marco, but in many cases I bet people will try it and then just go back to the old way.

I just don't get how a bartender at a nice restaurant can clear $250 on a good shift, while the souz chef makes $100-150, and nobody in the back of the house revolts.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't get how a bartender at a nice restaurant can clear $250 on a good shift, while the souz chef makes $100-150, and nobody in the back of the house revolts.

In most restaurants there exists animosity between the BOH and the FOH. Mainly for the reason you mentioned. Bartenders in nice and busy restaurants can clear a hell of a lot mor than $250, BTW.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I meant by American problem is that we create an institution that is a lot of times not ideal, but a work around to solve a certain issue and then when it becomes unworkable, change is nearly impossible, due to the resistance of the players involved and because of severe path dependence. When international solutions are recognized and recommended, there is a consistent - "well that works great there, but it would never work here because of X, Y, and Z"

See: health care, tort, broadband/Internet, public education...

I assumed you meant "something" like the above, and you have articulated it in far greater depth.  Thanks.

If everyone isn't subject to the same minimum wage policies, what is the real incentive for restaurants to move to this model? It's noble for Meyer or Bar Marco, but in many cases I bet people will try it and then just go back to the old way.

I just don't get how a bartender at a nice restaurant can clear $250 on a good shift, while the souz chef makes $100-150, and nobody in the back of the house revolts.

That is a strong point in my mind.  On top of that BOH wages can be very low.  With high rents, high every other costs it is difficult to "make a buck".  Competition in this and other markets is always fierce and frankly in any region there are relatively few places similar to Rose's Luxury meaning that many restaurants struggle for traffic and customers.  So I suppose for operators to change, it will take a very large belief system, a leap of faith, and  extensive finger crossing to call on "the good luck gods".

Why don't the people in the BOH revolt when their wages are low and FOH staff "can" make big money on great nights?   Good question.   BTW  FOH income is very inconsistent in most places dependent on how busy the place is, the shifts, how well staffed or "over staffed" a place is, management adjusting schedules, and a host of other reasons, etc.

BTW:  from the perspective of the bar school we have seen 10's of thousands of people enter the F &B industry.  All types, from people with a long history in the industry to newcomers, young and old, and of all ethnicities and countries.   In our case, most of the people enter the industry as its an easier way to make income or additional income.   The percentage of people we see who view it as a career and have a burning desire to excel are very few and far between.  Admittedly we may attract fewer of those people, but I know that percentage is a tiny minority.  In a sense, too bad, as the F & B industry is one where one can move from dishwasher or lower position to very successful owner, all without "professional training or expensive schooling", if one has the drive and talents.  In many ways an astonishing opportunity, sort of the personification of the "American dream".*

*there are examples I know in this region.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I count exactly two posts since the beginning of August that refer at all to the food at SMN. Everything else is about the tipping policy--and much of that not even specifically about the policy at SMN. I'm not saying it's an unimportant or even uninteresting subject, but why can't this be in the other tipping discussion forum, or create a separate "Sally's Middle Name Tipping Policy" discussion? Hell, create a "Rose's Luxury No-Reservations Policy" forum while we're at it. It feels like the larger dining experience is getting lost in these discussions of specific practices, and for those who want to know more about the former, it's getting tiresome. Not trying to shut down conversation, but at some point letting this go on so long in this space makes it seem like the restaurant is nothing but a particular policy, and I find that disheartening. I haven't eaten here for awhile, but if I had, I'd feel discouraged from reporting on my actual meal (or even linking to Sietsema's two-star review in this week's WaPo Magazine), because it'd get lost in the rest of the din--so why bother?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm wondering: Is it possible to create a new string of forums around business and practice? It bugs me how some restaurant discussions like Sally's Middle Name, Rose's Luxury, and some others get hijacked about practice issues, but it seems like there are other issues that might fit under a new grouping--general service issues, tipping, reservations, Open Table, parking, etc. For now, these seem to get subsumed under "News and Media," or connected to a specific restaurant where something is regarded as an issue (Rose's no reservations, Sally's tipping policy). It might not be as large a grouping as the others, but it would give the restaurant forums more breathing room to talk about people's actual experiences.

(And no, Don, I'm NOT trying to create more work for you. It just seems like there must be a better way to deal with this stuff. And PLEASE, move this into a separate discussion thread whereever you regard appropriate. Thanks.)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I count exactly two posts since the beginning of August that refer at all to the food at SMN. Everything else is about the tipping policy--and much of that not even specifically about the policy at SMN. I'm not saying it's an unimportant or even uninteresting subject, but why can't this be in the other tipping discussion forum, or create a separate "Sally's Middle Name Tipping Policy" discussion? Hell, create a "Rose's Luxury No-Reservations Policy" forum while we're at it. It feels like the larger dining experience is getting lost in these discussions of specific practices, and for those who want to know more about the former, it's getting tiresome. Not trying to shut down conversation, but at some point letting this go on so long in this space makes it seem like the restaurant is nothing but a particular policy, and I find that disheartening. I haven't eaten here for awhile, but if I had, I'd feel discouraged from reporting on my actual meal (or even linking to Sietsema's two-star review in this week's WaPo Magazine), because it'd get lost in the rest of the din--so why bother?

[Not to be a tool, but you know perfectly well that questioning website policy in the forums is verboten. As I said above, this will be moved, and in the meantime, we all await your review of SMN. :)]

(And also in the meantime, SMN is getting a ton of free publicity for being on the front lines. Or did I not mention that I'd be throwing my full support behind restaurants that eliminate tipping? (Which is why they need to get it right.))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Not to be a tool, but you know perfectly well that questioning website policy in the forums is verboten. As I said above, this will be moved, and in the meantime, we all await your review of SMN. :)]

(And also in the meantime, SMN is getting a ton of free publicity for being on the front lines. Or did I not mention that I'd be throwing my full support behind restaurants that eliminate tipping? (Which is why they need to get it right.))

Actually, Don, I didn't know that. What I don't know is where exactly to put certain posts, and it's frustrating to get second-guessed on things without warning, when I"m trying to do my best to respect you and the site. I'm not questioning your policy; I'm trying to raise in a constructive way ideas about how there might be ways to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, which is not the same thing as "questioning" policy. And this "free publicity" you are touting doesn't exactly encourage me to visit the place, since the talk about the tipping policy is mostly negative, and totally obscures whether SMN is actually worth visiting, policy be damned.

And I'll post a review if my income ever recovers enough that I can eat out more, which is unlikely in my current state of burnout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Don, I didn't know that. What I don't know is where exactly to put certain posts, and it's frustrating to get second-guessed on things without warning, when I"m trying to do my best to respect you and the site. I'm not questioning your policy; I'm trying to raise in a constructive way ideas about how there might be ways to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, which is not the same thing as "questioning" policy. And this "free publicity" you are touting doesn't exactly encourage me to visit the place, since the talk about the tipping policy is mostly negative, and totally obscures whether SMN is actually worth visiting, policy be damned.

And I'll post a review if my income ever recovers enough that I can eat out more, which is unlikely in my current state of burnout.

No worries - it's my responsibility to organize the posts. You're doing just fine, and the fact that I didn't know that means I need to write a Bill Of Rights (but I won't be able to come up with 10 things, since we only have about 5 rules, none of which are set in stone, but I think I should spell them out in a bullet list so everyone knows the very basic guidelines here, all but one being rooted in common courtesy (you managed to find the one that isn't; this one is to keep my life from being reduced to hellishness)).

SMN is absolutely worth visiting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...