The NY Times today has a column by a food writer, Steven Shaw, about
tipping. Thomas Keller has announced that he is abolishing tipping at
his Per Se restaurant in NYC, replacing it with a European-style
service charge.

Shaw discusses the several topics that from time to time are discussed
here but with the odd and unusual addition of facts.

1. "Customers believe in tipping because they think it makes economic
sense." However, dozens of studies by Cornell's School of Hotel
Administration have concluded that there is at best a weak correlation
between perceived quality of service and the amount tipped. Customers
actually tip based on whether they "like" the server, something that is
distinguishable from service.

2. Tipping is an invitation to "upselling," since overall tips
increase as the bill does.

3. Tip pooling is becoming more and more common, which guts whatever
effect tip anticipation might have had on your waiter.

4. "Indeed, there appears to be little connection between tipping and
good service."

5. Keller apparently wants to break the cycle where servers view their
jobs as transient and are willing to sacrifice longer term salary and
benefits for the quicker reward of tips and owners prefer to avoid
paying real wages to real employees. The idea is that longer term,
loyal waiters will actually perform better and make customers happier.

The full column is at NYTimes dot com, op-ed page, called "Tipped Off".

On 2005-08-10, aem > wrote:

> his Per Se restaurant in NYC, replacing it with a European-style
> service charge.

So, is this service charge going to become realistic wages
for workers, and if yes, why call it a service charge? Why not just
up the prices to accomplish the same thing? Sounds like more smoke
and mirrors to me.

nb

aem wrote:
> The NY Times today has a column by a food writer, Steven Shaw, about
> tipping. Thomas Keller has announced that he is abolishing tipping at
> his Per Se restaurant in NYC, replacing it with a European-style
> service charge.
>
> Shaw discusses the several topics that from time to time are discussed
> here but with the odd and unusual addition of facts.
>
> 1. "Customers believe in tipping because they think it makes economic
> sense." However, dozens of studies by Cornell's School of Hotel
> Administration have concluded that there is at best a weak correlation
> between perceived quality of service and the amount tipped. Customers
> actually tip based on whether they "like" the server, something that is
> distinguishable from service.
>
> 2. Tipping is an invitation to "upselling," since overall tips
> increase as the bill does.
>
> 3. Tip pooling is becoming more and more common, which guts whatever
> effect tip anticipation might have had on your waiter.
>
> 4. "Indeed, there appears to be little connection between tipping and
> good service."
>
> 5. Keller apparently wants to break the cycle where servers view their
> jobs as transient and are willing to sacrifice longer term salary and
> benefits for the quicker reward of tips and owners prefer to avoid
> paying real wages to real employees. The idea is that longer term,
> loyal waiters will actually perform better and make customers happier.
>
> The full column is at NYTimes dot com, op-ed page, called "Tipped Off".

Methinks this article must assume all folks frequent an establishemnt
but once... it definitely pays to tip, and well, at a restaurant one
frequents often. Naturally if the experience is such that due to poor
service you're never going to return then why bother to tip at all, I
don't, the consumer votes with its pocketbook. There's no rule that
says poor service deserves a tip anyway.

Sheldon

Sheldon wrote:
> Methinks this article must assume all folks frequent an establishemnt
> but once... it definitely pays to tip, and well, at a restaurant one
> frequents often. Naturally if the experience is such that due to poor
> service you're never going to return then why bother to tip at all, I
> don't, the consumer votes with its pocketbook. There's no rule that
> says poor service deserves a tip anyway.

Methinks also that both the author and the restaurant owner missed the court
case in which demanding addtional "service charges" in the guise of or in
lieu of gratuities, and in the absence of additional services, was found to
be bogus and therefore unenforceable.

In article >,
"pennyaline" <nsmitchell@spamspamspamspamspamspamspameggandspam .com>
wrote:

> Sheldon wrote:
> > Methinks this article must assume all folks frequent an establishemnt
> > but once... it definitely pays to tip, and well, at a restaurant one
> > frequents often. Naturally if the experience is such that due to poor
> > service you're never going to return then why bother to tip at all, I
> > don't, the consumer votes with its pocketbook. There's no rule that
> > says poor service deserves a tip anyway.
>
> Methinks also that both the author and the restaurant owner missed the court
> case in which demanding addtional "service charges" in the guise of or in
> lieu of gratuities, and in the absence of additional services, was found to
> be bogus and therefore unenforceable.

What court case was that?

"Stan Horwitz" > wrote in message
...
> "pennyaline" <nsmitchell@spamspamspamspamspamspamspameggandspam .com>
> wrote:

>> Methinks also that both the author and the restaurant owner missed the
>> court
>> case in which demanding addtional "service charges" in the guise of or in
>> lieu of gratuities, and in the absence of additional services, was found
>> to
>> be bogus and therefore unenforceable.
>
> What court case was that?

I remember that one ... some guy refused to pay it and it was ruled that he
didn't have to, by law. Was only a few years back.

nancy

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Stan Horwitz" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "pennyaline" <nsmitchell@spamspamspamspamspamspamspameggandspam .com>
>> wrote:
>
>>> Methinks also that both the author and the restaurant owner missed the
>>> court
>>> case in which demanding addtional "service charges" in the guise of or
>>> in
>>> lieu of gratuities, and in the absence of additional services, was found
>>> to
>>> be bogus and therefore unenforceable.
>>
>> What court case was that?
>
> I remember that one ... some guy refused to pay it and it was ruled that
> he
> didn't have to, by law. Was only a few years back.
>
> nancy
>

If he thinks "Waiters shouldn't do the job if restaurants can't pay a decent
wage that doesn't require tips", then he also should not patronize
restaurants. Otherwise, he's being hypocritical. If you think a business'
practices are unfair, why contribute any money at all?

"pennyaline" <nsmitchell@spamspamspamspamspamspamspameggandspam .com> wrote
in message ...
> Sheldon wrote:
>> Methinks this article must assume all folks frequent an establishemnt
>> but once... it definitely pays to tip, and well, at a restaurant one
>> frequents often. Naturally if the experience is such that due to poor
>> service you're never going to return then why bother to tip at all, I
>> don't, the consumer votes with its pocketbook. There's no rule that
>> says poor service deserves a tip anyway.
>
> Methinks also that both the author and the restaurant owner missed the
> court
> case in which demanding addtional "service charges" in the guise of or in
> lieu of gratuities, and in the absence of additional services, was found
> to
> be bogus and therefore unenforceable.
>
>

That sounds odd. There are plenty of restaurants where it'll say on the menu
"A 12% service charge will be added for parties of 10 or more", or something
in that vein. Regardless of what "the court case" said, this is not unusual.

Doug replied to pennyaline:

>> Methinks also that both the author and the restaurant owner missed the
>> court case in which demanding addtional "service charges" in the guise of
>> or in lieu of gratuities, and in the absence of additional services, was
>> found to be bogus and therefore unenforceable.
>>
>
> That sounds odd. There are plenty of restaurants where it'll say on the
> menu "A 12% service charge will be added for parties of 10 or more", or
> something in that vein. Regardless of what "the court case" said, this is
> not unusual.


First, I have to chuckle at pennyaline's use of precise legal terminology.
I don't know how many times Daniel Webster won in court by pointing at his
opposition and thundering out a scathing "BOGUS!" :-)

Doug, I think I know what she's talking about:

http://www.gothamist.com/archives/20...ping_point.php

"In a blow to restaurant owners and servers in particular, prosecutors
upstate ruled that a diner could not be forced to pay a tip - even if the
restaurant says it's mandatory."

Of course, that's just ONE case in ONE municipal court. There's no
requirement for rigid consistency between judicial venues in cases like
that; a similar case could easily go the other way in some other city.

Moreover, Thomas Keller may be well aware of that case, but he might have
some reason to believe his service charge *will* be enforceable. The quoted
portion doesn't say how the service charge is applied: It might differ
significantly enough from customary tipping practices that the court would
reasonably view it as an entirely different animal altogether. For example,
if the service charge doesn't depend on the cost of the meal, but is a flat
fee applied to each diner, then I can see some legitimacy to the claim that
the service fee differs significantly from a tip. Maybe even if the flat fee
were upped for parties requiring the services of a sommelier -- the
restaurant is providing an additional service, so it applies an additional
fee. But since I don't know what it meant by a "European-style service
charge," that's conjecture on my part. Any of you Europeans want to chime in
here and explain how service charges are applied in your part of the world?


Bob

"Bob" > wrote in message
...
> Doug replied to pennyaline:
>
>>> Methinks also that both the author and the restaurant owner missed the
>>> court case in which demanding addtional "service charges" in the guise
>>> of
>>> or in lieu of gratuities, and in the absence of additional services, was
>>> found to be bogus and therefore unenforceable.
>>>
>>
>> That sounds odd. There are plenty of restaurants where it'll say on the
>> menu "A 12% service charge will be added for parties of 10 or more", or
>> something in that vein. Regardless of what "the court case" said, this is
>> not unusual.
>
>
> First, I have to chuckle at pennyaline's use of precise legal terminology.
> I don't know how many times Daniel Webster won in court by pointing at his
> opposition and thundering out a scathing "BOGUS!" :-)
>
> Doug, I think I know what she's talking about:

I wasn't saying it didn't happen - just that it seems odd. With little or no
knowledge of the financials of a certain business, or the physical effort
involved in running it, some people are willing to make value judgements,
and complain about pricing structures. Ask that guy in the article if it's
OK to charge money for installing windows, and he'd probably say "Of
course". But, pay a labor charge for food delivery? Never.

Then, there are people like the one on that web page who said this:
"As for the primadonnas who wait tables for a day job, hey - time to grow
up. Plenty of us creative types work a "real" job and still find time to do
our thing."

She has apparently never seen a truly professional waiter who made a
difference in how pleasant the meal was. Admittedly, they're few and far
between.

Speaking of bad restaurant policies, I'd like to know who started the "guys"
habit: "Hi....can I bring you guys something to drink?" Or, "How are you
guys doing tonight?" This, spoken to a group consisting of 3 women and 1
man. A friend of mine is rounding up financing for a restaurant. She says
her #1 rule will be that if the word "guys" is uttered by a waiter/waitress,
that person will be given the choice of dishwashing duty, or termination. I
love it.

Bob wrote:
> Doug replied to pennyaline:
> > I wrote:
> >> Methinks also that both the author and the restaurant owner missed the
> >> court case in which demanding addtional "service charges" in the guise
of
> >> or in lieu of gratuities, and in the absence of additional services,
was
> >> found to be bogus and therefore unenforceable.
> >>
> >
> > That sounds odd. There are plenty of restaurants where it'll say on the
> > menu "A 12% service charge will be added for parties of 10 or more", or
> > something in that vein. Regardless of what "the court case" said, this
is
> > not unusual.
>
>
> First, I have to chuckle at pennyaline's use of precise legal terminology.
> I don't know how many times Daniel Webster won in court by pointing at his
> opposition and thundering out a scathing "BOGUS!" :-)

Ahem!! Scoff if you will. But would you ever have suspected that Daniel
Webster was in fact one of my forebears??

So, watch yourself


> Doug, I think I know what she's talking about:
>
> http://www.gothamist.com/archives/20...ping_point.php
>
> "In a blow to restaurant owners and servers in particular, prosecutors
> upstate ruled that a diner could not be forced to pay a tip - even if the
> restaurant says it's mandatory."
>
> Of course, that's just ONE case in ONE municipal court. There's no
> requirement for rigid consistency between judicial venues in cases like
> that; a similar case could easily go the other way in some other city.
>
> Moreover, Thomas Keller may be well aware of that case, but he might have
> some reason to believe his service charge *will* be enforceable. The
quoted
> portion doesn't say how the service charge is applied: It might differ
> significantly enough from customary tipping practices that the court would
> reasonably view it as an entirely different animal altogether. For
example,
> if the service charge doesn't depend on the cost of the meal, but is a
flat
> fee applied to each diner, then I can see some legitimacy to the claim
that
> the service fee differs significantly from a tip. Maybe even if the flat
fee
> were upped for parties requiring the services of a sommelier -- the
> restaurant is providing an additional service, so it applies an additional
> fee. But since I don't know what it meant by a "European-style service
> charge," that's conjecture on my part. Any of you Europeans want to chime
in
> here and explain how service charges are applied in your part of the
world?

Here's what I think: the "European-style service charge" is a load of shit,
something European restaurants charge American tourists because they know
Americans will pay it as they pat themselves on the back in congratulations
for having dined in a European restaurant... they'll even hold on to the
credit card receipt to show to their friends at home: "And this down here at
the bottom is the extra European restaurant charge!"

If the restaurant employs a sommelier, it employs a sommelier to provide
services to restaurant customers. If the person providing the service is
already there to provide a service, then customers should not be charged
extra for that service.

It would be different if the restaurant had to go and seek out a sommelier
for customers who are demanding one, to provide an extraordinary service.
(In a case such as that, would it be inappropriate for the sommelier to bill
the customers separately? )

<oh please, don't start!>

Doug Kanter wrote:
> "pennyaline" <nsmitchell@spamspamspamspamspamspamspameggandspam .com> wrote
> in message ...
> > Sheldon wrote:
> >> Methinks this article must assume all folks frequent an establishemnt
> >> but once... it definitely pays to tip, and well, at a restaurant one
> >> frequents often. Naturally if the experience is such that due to poor
> >> service you're never going to return then why bother to tip at all, I
> >> don't, the consumer votes with its pocketbook. There's no rule that
> >> says poor service deserves a tip anyway.
> >
> > Methinks also that both the author and the restaurant owner missed the
> > court
> > case in which demanding addtional "service charges" in the guise of or in
> > lieu of gratuities, and in the absence of additional services, was found
> > to
> > be bogus and therefore unenforceable.
> >
> >
>
> That sounds odd. There are plenty of restaurants where it'll say on the menu
> "A 12% service charge will be added for parties of 10 or more", or something
> in that vein. Regardless of what "the court case" said, this is not unusual.

Nothing odd. Doesn't matter what it says on a menu, a menu is not a
legal instrument. Many restaurants post signs/notices saying "Not
Responsible For Personal Property (per management)", but by law they
are responsible, not only for your property but they're responsible for
you bodily as well (regardless the presumptuousness of management), in
NYC businesses are prohibited by law from posting such signs. A
business is an "invitee", ergo they are responsible. Btw, a restaurant
patron is not required to read a menu, in fact they are not required to
know how to read. In order to enforce a 12% service charge the
business must inform *verbally* _prior to_ taking an order, where upon
with _acceptance_ a legal contract (verbal) is entered into... posting
a private sign/notice (especially one contrary to law) hoping it will
be read and comprehended does not a legal contract make. Even though
the vast majority of patrons will note the sign and comply they are not
legally required to, not in the US.

Sheldon

"Sheldon" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Doug Kanter wrote:
>> "pennyaline" <nsmitchell@spamspamspamspamspamspamspameggandspam .com>
>> wrote
>> in message ...
>> > Sheldon wrote:
>> >> Methinks this article must assume all folks frequent an establishemnt
>> >> but once... it definitely pays to tip, and well, at a restaurant one
>> >> frequents often. Naturally if the experience is such that due to poor
>> >> service you're never going to return then why bother to tip at all, I
>> >> don't, the consumer votes with its pocketbook. There's no rule that
>> >> says poor service deserves a tip anyway.
>> >
>> > Methinks also that both the author and the restaurant owner missed the
>> > court
>> > case in which demanding addtional "service charges" in the guise of or
>> > in
>> > lieu of gratuities, and in the absence of additional services, was
>> > found
>> > to
>> > be bogus and therefore unenforceable.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> That sounds odd. There are plenty of restaurants where it'll say on the
>> menu
>> "A 12% service charge will be added for parties of 10 or more", or
>> something
>> in that vein. Regardless of what "the court case" said, this is not
>> unusual.
>
> Nothing odd. Doesn't matter what it says on a menu, a menu is not a
> legal instrument. Many restaurants post signs/notices saying "Not
> Responsible For Personal Property (per management)", but by law they
> are responsible, not only for your property but they're responsible for
> you bodily as well (regardless the presumptuousness of management), in
> NYC businesses are prohibited by law from posting such signs. A
> business is an "invitee", ergo they are responsible. Btw, a restaurant
> patron is not required to read a menu, in fact they are not required to
> know how to read. In order to enforce a 12% service charge the
> business must inform *verbally* _prior to_ taking an order, where upon
> with _acceptance_ a legal contract (verbal) is entered into... posting
> a private sign/notice (especially one contrary to law) hoping it will
> be read and comprehended does not a legal contract make. Even though
> the vast majority of patrons will note the sign and comply they are not
> legally required to, not in the US.
>
> Sheldon
>

Interesting - not required to read. I wonder how someone claiming to be
illiterate would explain how they chose an item off the menu, especially in
a place where relatively uncommon dishes were served.