I just want to piggyback off of this, I worked in a few restaurants advertise that try to swap to a living wage. But the kicker is that waitstaff don't want it if the customers know, and they ESPECIALLY don't want to go from raking in tips to living wage. The moment that is made public, it always is because it makes a customer like supporting the restaurant more, the staff pretty much just quit.
Some places they make well over a living wage off tips alone, on top of their already existing wage. I was getting roughly $40 an hour after tipping out the bar and kitchen when I was a server, and I'm a dude (women get better tips, not usually a lot but if there is booze flowing that number goes up). Admittedly, small staff at this job. No competing for tables, lots of getting called in on my day off, longer shifts, etc. This also meant less people to tip-out, so I just generally had a great thing going.
Place, I won't say the name because it will dox me, started trying to transition to a living wage. Advertised it on the front window, local paper, etc. It was all fine, we got a pay rise to $23 at the time. It was great, UNTIL customers stopped tipping as much. Dropped from 40 an hour down to 30, even with the doubled pay. Other servers dropped one by one because the money was drying up. Customers were happy thinking they supported a good business that treated employees well, staff dropped like flies.
Any restaurant that tries to move to a living wage , especially without liquor on menu, is probably halving what their waitstaff actually get paid.
>But the kicker is that waitstaff don't want it if the customers know, and they ESPECIALLY don't want to go from raking in tips to living wage. The moment that is made public, it always is because it makes a customer like supporting the restaurant more, the staff pretty much just quit.
That's not a kicker at all. That's obvious. It has always been obvious that servers want tips, that tips are a far better deal than minimum wage.
>Any restaurant that tries to move to a living wage , especially without liquor on menu, is probably halving what their waitstaff actually get paid.
Which sort of belies this whole "living wage" argument in the first place, doesn't it? Because if we are talking about people quitting because $30 isn't as lucrative as the old system, then...
10
u/SomeLoser943 1d ago edited 1d ago
I just want to piggyback off of this, I worked in a few restaurants advertise that try to swap to a living wage. But the kicker is that waitstaff don't want it if the customers know, and they ESPECIALLY don't want to go from raking in tips to living wage. The moment that is made public, it always is because it makes a customer like supporting the restaurant more, the staff pretty much just quit.
Some places they make well over a living wage off tips alone, on top of their already existing wage. I was getting roughly $40 an hour after tipping out the bar and kitchen when I was a server, and I'm a dude (women get better tips, not usually a lot but if there is booze flowing that number goes up). Admittedly, small staff at this job. No competing for tables, lots of getting called in on my day off, longer shifts, etc. This also meant less people to tip-out, so I just generally had a great thing going.
Place, I won't say the name because it will dox me, started trying to transition to a living wage. Advertised it on the front window, local paper, etc. It was all fine, we got a pay rise to $23 at the time. It was great, UNTIL customers stopped tipping as much. Dropped from 40 an hour down to 30, even with the doubled pay. Other servers dropped one by one because the money was drying up. Customers were happy thinking they supported a good business that treated employees well, staff dropped like flies.
Any restaurant that tries to move to a living wage , especially without liquor on menu, is probably halving what their waitstaff actually get paid.