Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

TippingFollow

#27 Nov 19 2009 at 6:58 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
I generally tip fairly well... I believe the only time I didn't give a tip was when the waiter was too busy watching football to serve us. It was pretty easy to see over a sea of empty tables.
#28 Nov 19 2009 at 6:58 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Bardalicious wrote:
I can't count how many times the kitchen would mess up an order that resulted in tables blaming me.
I never really worried about those. Most times, I was able to make up for the poor quality the kitchen provided and on occasion that I couldn't make up for it, I'm sure there was an equal number of times that the kitchen saved my *** after I had forgotten to place an order. If the kitchen is bad enough that you can't make up for it, you're either in the wrong line of work or working at the wrong restaurant.


Honestly though, that's usually not the biggest issue for customers though. When people make a choice of how much to tip, it's based on the service they received. This is not just about how long it took for the food to be prepared, or whether minor mistakes were made. It's more about how the wait staff interacts with the customer. Your waiter is not dependent on the kitchen with regards to whether or not he can come by the table and ask us how we're doing and if we need anything. He's typically equally capable of keeping our glasses filled and making sure we have the things we've asked for.

I have very very rarely reduced a tip because of a mistake on the order or delay getting my food. But if I'm waiting an hour for my order to arrive and I haven't seen my waiter in that entire time *then* it's going to reduce the tip. If my glass is empty and not only does it not get refilled, but I can't even flag someone down to alert them to this fact, that's going to reduce the tip. You can be busy without appearing as though you have more important things to do than your job. And if something gets missed, or there's a delay or mistake, a timely apology and update works wonders at keeping that tip intact. If my meal is delayed and my waiter comes to my table and says that "there's some issue in the kitchen and it'll take a bit longer for the food, but while we're waiting is there anything else we need?... goes a freaking long way towards the "good service" side of things. The flip side is that if I'm waiting that long and there's no explanation and the waiter seems to be avoiding our table because the kitchen messed up the order that pushes things in the other direction.


I'm tipping the server, not the kitchen. Yes. I'm aware that the kitchen staff and the bus staff gets a piece, but my primary concern is whether the service was good. If the meal is bad, or takes too long, that's going to affect my decision to come back to that restaurant, but wont typically impact my tip.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#29 Nov 19 2009 at 7:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Bardalicious wrote:
You only have to split the tips that you report Smiley: schooled

Except 90% of the time, my tip goes on the bank card receipt and the other 10%, it's picked up by whoever's clearing tables.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#30 Nov 19 2009 at 7:02 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
gbaji wrote:
Honestly though, that's usually not the biggest issue for customers though. When people make a choice of how much to tip, it's based on the service they received. This is not just about how long it took for the food to be prepared, or whether minor mistakes were made. It's more about how the wait staff interacts with the customer. Your waiter is not dependent on the kitchen with regards to whether or not he can come by the table and ask us how we're doing and if we need anything. He's typically equally capable of keeping our glasses filled and making sure we have the things we've asked for.

I have very very rarely reduced a tip because of a mistake on the order or delay getting my food. But if I'm waiting an hour for my order to arrive and I haven't seen my waiter in that entire time *then* it's going to reduce the tip. If my glass is empty and not only does it not get refilled, but I can't even flag someone down to alert them to this fact, that's going to reduce the tip. You can be busy without appearing as though you have more important things to do than your job. And if something gets missed, or there's a delay or mistake, a timely apology and update works wonders at keeping that tip intact. If my meal is delayed and my waiter comes to my table and says that "there's some issue in the kitchen and it'll take a bit longer for the food, but while we're waiting is there anything else we need?... goes a freaking long way towards the "good service" side of things. The flip side is that if I'm waiting that long and there's no explanation and the waiter seems to be avoiding our table because the kitchen messed up the order that pushes things in the other direction.


I'm tipping the server, not the kitchen. Yes. I'm aware that the kitchen staff and the bus staff gets a piece, but my primary concern is whether the service was good. If the meal is bad, or takes too long, that's going to affect my decision to come back to that restaurant, but wont typically impact my tip.


What the hell are you going on about? You tell me that's not what the biggest issue for customers but then go on to tell me that the service from the waiter is the issue, while quoting me saying that a waiter should be able to make up for a slow kitchen.

Either you're somehow, completely misunderstanding me, or making my argument for me.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#31 Nov 19 2009 at 7:03 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Everyone I hear talk about it says that their tips wind up getting split five ways to Sunday anyway and, if I'm trying to reward the server for her bright smile and sunny disposition, I bristle to think that my money is going to a bunch of non-sunny magooks elsewhere in the building. Which seems a bit unfair to her (or him) but no one asked me before they made the policies.


You only have to split the tips that you report Smiley: schooled
Hello, my name is Irene Rebecca Smith. Can I come in for a moment?
#32 Nov 19 2009 at 7:03 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Bardalicious wrote:
You only have to split the tips that you report Smiley: schooled

Except 90% of the time, my tip goes on the bank card receipt and the other 10%, it's picked up by whoever's clearing tables.

I never had a problem with bussers stealing my cash tips.

Probably because I swooped down on the tables and picked up my tips before the bussers got there.

#33 Nov 19 2009 at 7:05 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
Sweetums wrote:
Bardalicious wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Everyone I hear talk about it says that their tips wind up getting split five ways to Sunday anyway and, if I'm trying to reward the server for her bright smile and sunny disposition, I bristle to think that my money is going to a bunch of non-sunny magooks elsewhere in the building. Which seems a bit unfair to her (or him) but no one asked me before they made the policies.


You only have to split the tips that you report Smiley: schooled
Hello, my name is Irene Rebecca Smith. Can I come in for a moment?

It's pretty damn hard to get caught fudging your tip reports. The only decent method they have of detecting it is if your cash tip percentage equals your electronic (debit/credit) tip percentage.


#34 Nov 19 2009 at 7:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
The gratuity is the minimum tipping percentage for large parties. It isn't a suggestion, though you are more than welcome to tip on top of that if you feel the inclination.


There is no way that 18% is the "minimum gratuity" for a large party. It's the suggested gratuity, and it's calculated and added automatically to the bill because people tend to lose their mathematical abilities when calculating tips for any group larger than about 4 and the restaurants know this.

It's still a tip. The difference is that instead of putting the bottom amount (0%) and hoping the customer remembers to calculate the tip properly, they put in a highish amount (18% in this case) and figure most people will just pay it because it's already on the bill. It's still legally a gratuity and therefore optional.


It's about forgetful customers, not the size of the party in terms of difficulty. Which would you rather deal with as a waiter? One table with 8 people, or 8 tables with one person? Obviously, you'll take the large party. Wait staff fight over how many large parties they get, and there's usually a rotation to get them for exactly the reason that it's a much better tip/time and tip/work ratio. It's not harder in relation to a total dollar amount of food sold to work a large party. It's easier...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#35 Nov 19 2009 at 7:11 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
What the hell are you going on about? You tell me that's not what the biggest issue for customers but then go on to tell me that the service from the waiter is the issue, while quoting me saying that a waiter should be able to make up for a slow kitchen.


I'm saying that service is not defined by whether or not the kitchen made a mistake. It's how the wait staff deals with my table that matters to me.

Everyone's been going on about how it's wrong to punish bad service by decreasing the tip because most of the time it's out of the wait staff's control. I'm countering that line of reasoning. I don't tip (and apparently neither does Joph, and probably a whole lot of people) based on how long it takes my food to get to me. I tip based on what my waiter was doing while I was waiting...


EDIT. Forgot. I wasn't actually disagreeing with you. Just adding to what you said.

Edited, Nov 19th 2009 5:17pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#36 Nov 19 2009 at 7:13 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
gbaji wrote:
Wait staff fight over how many large parties they get
No they don't. Well, yes they do, but mostly it's getting upset they got a large table.

Let me clarify, as you're partially right. In my experience, wait staff fight to not get the large tables because it's a lot of work, you don't flip as many groups and therefore, often end up with less tips as your sales aren't as high.


Now, I took all the large parties I could as I just kept them smashed, therefore their cheques were abnormally large and they were tanked and often tipping more generously as a result.

Edited, Nov 19th 2009 9:22pm by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#37 Nov 19 2009 at 7:13 PM Rating: Decent
****
5,684 posts
gbaji wrote:
Bardalicious wrote:
The gratuity is the minimum tipping percentage for large parties. It isn't a suggestion, though you are more than welcome to tip on top of that if you feel the inclination.


There is no way that 18% is the "minimum gratuity" for a large party. It's the suggested gratuity, and it's calculated and added automatically to the bill because people tend to lose their mathematical abilities when calculating tips for any group larger than about 4 and the restaurants know this.

It's still a tip. The difference is that instead of putting the bottom amount (0%) and hoping the customer remembers to calculate the tip properly, they put in a highish amount (18% in this case) and figure most people will just pay it because it's already on the bill. It's still legally a gratuity and therefore optional.


It's about forgetful customers, not the size of the party in terms of difficulty. Which would you rather deal with as a waiter? One table with 8 people, or 8 tables with one person? Obviously, you'll take the large party. Wait staff fight over how many large parties they get, and there's usually a rotation to get them for exactly the reason that it's a much better tip/time and tip/work ratio. It's not harder in relation to a total dollar amount of food sold to work a large party. It's easier...

I'll give you the point that calling it gratuity is poor word choice.

When they total it into the bill for you automatically, it isn't a suggestion anymore. That bottom line that you see? Yeah, that is a "pay this amount" charge. It isn't a "pay this much, if you feel like it" charge. When the restaurant informs you before you order that there is a required gratuity, they have the legal high ground.

Where I worked, we usually fought over who would have to take the large parties. Large parties = lots of talking = camping = less rotations = less money. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that you have experience as a waiter and are talking out your **** (again) on this point.
#38 Nov 19 2009 at 7:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
gbaji wrote:
I wasn't actually disagreeing with you. Just adding to what you said.
Ah ha! Continue.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#39 Nov 19 2009 at 7:16 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
As someone with no waiting experience, I would imagine that a single person would be pretty nice because they generally eat quickly and don't sit around after they finish eating.
#40 Nov 19 2009 at 7:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Wait staff fight over how many large parties they get
No they don't. Well, yes they do, but mostly it's getting upset they got a large table.


You work(ed) at some messed up places then. Everyone I've ever known who's worked as a waiter has talked at length about how unfair it is that the folks with the seniority (or who are suspected of working on their knees for the boss) get the best shifts and the bulk of the large parties. That's what everyone wants. It takes vastly less effort and time to work one large table than a bunch of small ones. But the 15% of 8 meals is the same whether it's one table with 8 people, or 2 tables with 4, or 4 tables with 2, or 8 tables with one.

Are you honestly saying you'd rather work more small tables? Cause that flies in the face not only with basic logic, but with every other person working in that field I've ever spoken to.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#41 Nov 19 2009 at 7:19 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Wait staff fight over how many large parties they get
No they don't. Well, yes they do, but mostly it's getting upset they got a large table.


You work(ed) at some messed up places then. Everyone I've ever known who's worked as a waiter has talked at length about how unfair it is that the folks with the seniority (or who are suspected of working on their knees for the boss) get the best shifts and the bulk of the large parties. That's what everyone wants. It takes vastly less effort and time to work one large table than a bunch of small ones. But the 15% of 8 meals is the same whether it's one table with 8 people, or 2 tables with 4, or 4 tables with 2, or 8 tables with one.

Are you honestly saying you'd rather work more small tables? Cause that flies in the face not only with basic logic, but with every other person working in that field I've ever spoken to.
I'm guessing that after a certain point, more people become more of a hassle than they're worth, but for truly large parties, don't they usually split the wait duties, anyway?
#42 Nov 19 2009 at 7:19 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
gbaji wrote:

You work(ed) at some messed up places then. Everyone I've ever known who's worked as a waiter has talked at length about how unfair it is that the folks with the seniority (or who are suspected of working on their knees for the boss) get the best shifts and the bulk of the large parties. That's what everyone wants. It takes vastly less effort and time to work one large table than a bunch of small ones. But the 15% of 8 meals is the same whether it's one table with 8 people, or 2 tables with 4, or 4 tables with 2, or 8 tables with one.

You're right! your second hand knowledge of the industry is CLEARLY superior to the first hand knowledge of multiple people.

Quote:
I'm guessing that after a certain point, more people become more of a hassle than they're worth, but for truly large parties, don't they usually split the wait duties, anyway?

The place I worked didn't do that until you got to 16.



Edited, Nov 19th 2009 7:31pm by Bardalicious
#43 Nov 19 2009 at 7:19 PM Rating: Good
****
4,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's the suggested gratuity, and it's calculated and added automatically to the bill because people tend to lose their mathematical abilities when calculating tips for any group larger than about 4 and the restaurants know this.


...what.

The restaurant I worked at had on the menu, word-for-word, bottom of every page - "An 18% gratuity will be charged to parties of six or more." Every other restaurant I've been to with a similar policy has essentially identical wording. I understand that it may not be legal for them to force customers to pay that, but the idea is that when you open the menu and see that statement, you are agreeing to that price on the bill.

The restaurant most certainly doesn't put it on there as "Oh we're just super happy to have you here so we're going to help you out by adding gratuity onto your bill, but don't worry about it!!!! :D" You are far more work as a part of six. You're likely to stay longer as a party of six. You're more likely to have multiple people paying as a party of six, which then leads to a greater chance of "Whoops we did the math wrong. Oh well, less tip for the server!"

gbaji wrote:
It's about forgetful customers, not the size of the party in terms of difficulty. Which would you rather deal with as a waiter? One table with 8 people, or 8 tables with one person? Obviously, you'll take the large party. Wait staff fight over how many large parties they get, and there's usually a rotation to get them for exactly the reason that it's a much better tip/time and tip/work ratio. It's not harder in relation to a total dollar amount of food sold to work a large party. It's easier...


...

When was the last time you were a server? Nobody ever wanted the walk-in party of eight. Nobody. They'd gloat about it at the end because they got so much money (hey, from adding gratuity!), but no one ever wanted it the next time around. I'm not even going to touch the statements about large parties being easier.

EDIT: You make it all so much harder to get +1 if you respond to everything so fast. :(

Edited, Nov 19th 2009 8:24pm by CBD
#44 Nov 19 2009 at 7:21 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
gbaji wrote:
Are you honestly saying you'd rather work more small tables? Cause that flies in the face not only with basic logic, but with every other person working in that field I've ever spoken to.
See my above edit, but jsut so you know, you're speaking to an elite few in the industry as in all my years in restaurants, it's a minority that know the truth behind larger parties.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#45 Nov 19 2009 at 7:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Sweetums wrote:
As someone with no waiting experience, I would imagine that a single person would be pretty nice because they generally eat quickly and don't sit around after they finish eating.


It's more than balanced out by the fact that most large parties sitting around for a long time after the meal are more likely to order drinks than a smaller party. And if they don't, it takes exactly the same amount of overhead to walk by a large table and ask if anyone needs anything as it does a small one. And it takes less time to fill 3 or 4 glasses that are low at one large table than to even check if each of the single tables needs more water.

The time is having to make rounds among your tables. It takes less time to take 8 orders at one table, than 8 at 8 different ones. It takes less time to deliver 8 dishes to one table, than to 8. We can go on and on and in every single component of waiting it's a more efficient use of your time to work a larger table.

It does take more skill, but that's typically just in the handling and timing of getting 8 meals to the table in a short amount of time. Everything else is pretty much gravy...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#46 Nov 19 2009 at 7:22 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
CBD wrote:
I'm not even going to touch the statements about large parties being easier.
Ah, but typically, they are easier. Don't get me wrong, the initial hit of the first drink order is harder, but after you get those drinks out, the rest is a breeze.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#47 Nov 19 2009 at 7:24 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
CBD wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's the suggested gratuity, and it's calculated and added automatically to the bill because people tend to lose their mathematical abilities when calculating tips for any group larger than about 4 and the restaurants know this.


...what.

The restaurant I worked at had on the menu, word-for-word, bottom of every page - "An 18% gratuity will be charged to parties of six or more." Every other restaurant I've been to with a similar policy has essentially identical wording. I understand that it may not be legal for them to force customers to pay that, but the idea is that when you open the menu and see that statement, you are agreeing to that price on the bill.

I don't see how it's not legal. It's explicitly stated. If someone doesn't like the policy, then they're free to take their business elsewhere.

Edited, Nov 19th 2009 7:35pm by Sweetums
#48 Nov 19 2009 at 7:26 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
gbaji, how much experience do you have as a waiter?
#49 Nov 19 2009 at 7:28 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
I'm scared that I'll have to be a waiter. Not because I think I'm above it, but because I'd fall while carrying somebody's gin & tonic.
#50 Nov 19 2009 at 7:28 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
CBD wrote:
The restaurant I worked at had on the menu, word-for-word, bottom of every page - "An 18% gratuity will be charged to parties of six or more." Every other restaurant I've been to with a similar policy has essentially identical wording.


Yes. They include the word "gratuity". Not "surcharge". Gratuity. A gratuity is a gift given in excess of the required amount in return for service. It is "optional". All that wording means is that they're calculating your tip for you and putting it on the bill. Barring some bizarre local legislation specific to gratuities, you are not required to pay that portion of the bill and can refuse to pay it, or reduce it if you want.

Most people just pay what's on the bill in that situation. And that usually works out just peachy for everyone. That's why restaurants do that.

Quote:
I understand that it may not be legal for them to force customers to pay that, but the idea is that when you open the menu and see that statement, you are agreeing to that price on the bill.


No. You are being notified that they are adding the tip to your bill for you. That's it. It is no less optional.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#51 Nov 19 2009 at 7:31 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
gbaji wrote:
CBD wrote:
The restaurant I worked at had on the menu, word-for-word, bottom of every page - "An 18% gratuity will be charged to parties of six or more." Every other restaurant I've been to with a similar policy has essentially identical wording.


Yes. They include the word "gratuity". Not "surcharge". Gratuity. A gratuity is a gift given in excess of the required amount in return for service. It is "optional". All that wording means is that they're calculating your tip for you and putting it on the bill. Barring some bizarre local legislation specific to gratuities, you are not required to pay that portion of the bill and can refuse to pay it, or reduce it if you want.

Most people just pay what's on the bill in that situation. And that usually works out just peachy for everyone. That's why restaurants do that.

Quote:
I understand that it may not be legal for them to force customers to pay that, but the idea is that when you open the menu and see that statement, you are agreeing to that price on the bill.


No. You are being notified that they are adding the tip to your bill for you. That's it. It is no less optional.

gbaji, you are getting caught up in semantics, which is something you usually claim to be better than.


again, how much experience do you have as a waiter?
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 231 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (231)