Generally speaking more expensive restaurants have better trained and more experienced servers that are more attentive hence deserving in a better tip. The percentage is really just a hack as a rough estimate of how much work a server had to do. While not always true a meal costing $100 will probably require more work from a server then a meal costing $50.
I understand why the kitchen staff deserves tips, they're the ones doing all the real work. I can't understand why the server who spends at most 2-3 minutes an hour taking the order and carrying it from the kitchen to the table deserves 20% of the bill.
(In my area servers and kitchen staff now make the same standard minimum wage before tips, so it's especially obscene to demand 20% on top of the $12-$15/hour the server is already making for almost no work.)
Yes that is the tradition but as a customer, you often find that the tip is shared disproportionately. I've had delicious food served by a terrible waiter or waitress... wanted to give the chef a great tip but the server the bare minimum. I guess in general I believe the cook's job is a lot more difficult and I'd like to ensure a larger percentage of my tip goes to him or her, but am pretty sure it doesn't.
Maybe for you, I tip extra for working hard to keep my meal hot on delivery, water topped up, checking in at appropriate times. I honestly don't understand how you can say tips are not proportional to level of service and how level of service is entirely detached from working hard.
> Most people work just as hard without getting tips (like the people who are actually cooking thr food)
Most people get paid a real wage which isn't backfilled with charity from their customers.
At many good restaurants tips are distributed to the kitchen staff too. Obviously I have no control over that, and the world isn't fair either. None of this changes my argument.
Yes, on average the server at the high end restaurant did substantially more work, and they performed it more expertly.
they were better able to answer questions and offer suggestions (including off-menu changes that might help you). They timed your meal for your enjoyment rather than for turnover. They made sure you had fresh silverware, a clean table, and a full glass. They coordinated your bar, wine, and food orders so appropriate items were presented at the appropriate time. They verified the kitchen gave them correct dishes before they brought them to you. They devoted a lot of energy into ensuring that a small number of guests have a great experience.
They're able to earn decent livings because they are at the top of their field.
The folks at chili's are granted no autonomy. Their goal is to turn the table quickly, with the least effort; and to do this with the least skilled staff. They work hard, but their goal is to serve a large number of guests with a tolerable experience, not a great one.
Yes, they bring food and drink, but the focus is on throughput, not on quality.
It's similar to the difference between code written by a low bid contractor versus a talented on-site team. If you want anything unusual or if you care about quality and the experience, you'll greatly prefer the on site staff. Even if some execs might not understand why you can't offshore 100% of the work.
Servers like tipping because big tippers are more than the enforced average of non-tippers. It's little to do with the people being tipped, and the people who make the most tips are the ones with the largest breasts and prettiest makeup and skin color, not the ones doing the best job waiting tables.
How is it better? The cooks and hosts make the same wage because the tips aren't enough to make up the difference. The waitstaff makes less because their tips are deducted from to pay the cooks and hosts. The customer looses because they payed extra for their meal, but didn't actually increase the wages of the people who made it and served them.
The only winner is the restaurant owners who get away with paying their staff less.
Restaurants handle this issue in many different ways. I have been to several who explicitly state that all tips are divided & shared among all employees, and I think this is a good model. I've also seen one with a separate tip jar for kitchen staff, which may be a better option in some places. Really, why should the server make more than the cook or the dishwasher? Are they actually working harder? [I know, their wages are often structured differently, but I question whether they should be.]
What about the person making the food? They arguably do more work than the person who takes the order (if at all, with how you scan a QR code these days) and they bring you the food. The tips are almost always for the wait staff and doesn’t go to the kitchen.
Ask any dishwasher if they'd rather have tips or minimum wage (which is what I got as a dishwasher) and I assure you they'd pick tips. There's a lot of workers in the restaurant who aren't as fortunate as your server.
Not sure what the real point of this is but I wish people remembered that in the restaurant hierarchy servers are nowhere near the bottom.
Why does FOH deserve a tip at all? A job is a job. The cook made your life easier by cooking. So did the cleaner and carpenter and car manufacturer doing g their jobs.
Tipping isn't for quality of the food, as highlighted by the fact that the tips are often legally restricted from being passed on to the cooks. It's for quality of the service.
reply