Restaurant detains group of diners for failing to pay mandatory tip

[EricKei]

. From what I understand, the lower minimum wage came from an acknowledgement that a tipping culture existed to add reward to an enjoyable dining experience.

Correct. It is based upon the presumption that ALL diners WILL always tip at least a certain amount (8%? 10%?), and the IRS taxes the Servers accordingly. We all know this doesn't always happen. If someone at a high-end restaurant leaves no tip on a thousand-dollar tab, the Server is stuck paying taxes on as much as $100 that they never actually got.

To hazard a guess -- I would say that the "autograt" (mandatory service fee on large groups) came about due to the tendency of members of said groups to tip poorly or not at all, a bit too often. I've seen it in action before -- everyone will decide that "someone else will contribute to the tips, therefore, there's no need for me to do so". Alternatively, they will split up the checks in order to try and get around paying the autograt at all.

Actually, from what I understand, legally, if a server does not make at least minimum wage with both wage and tips combined, then the employer is required to make up the shortfall. In practice, I sincerely doubt this happens much, if at all.

I worked in foodservice long enough to know that you nailed it exactly. I have NEVER heard of a manager/restaurant making up the shortfall. All they have to do is claim that the Server was either (a) lying about not getting a tip, or (b) claiming that higher tips from other patrons "ALWAYS" makes up the shortfall. ... And this doesn't even get into place that require Servers to "tip out" (share tips with) non-tipped workers (which is most likely legal) or management (which, iirc, is not).

Now throw in that I am now a pizza delivery driver. we get huge orders sometimes in the $300 - 400 range. that is a LOT of pizzas.

Been there, delivered the food, car still smells like pepperoni ~_~ I can back this one up. School orders other large orders are often no-tippers *and* very demanding -- sometimes there's no tip because the person giving you the check isn't spending their own money and simply doesn't know if they're allowed to tip (plus, especially if they work at a school, they likely don't have much $ of their own to spare); more often than not, it either never came up, or the person writing the check didn't add a tip.

"Well your tip went into the poor box"

I've never met a rich pizza driver...

[HYHYBT]

The only order for a school I got during my woefully short time delivering pizzas, they were reselling it by the slice for a basketball game.

[Canarr]

I have been a sever and a cook and and a manager and am currently a pizza delivery driver I can speak to this.

yes I have had large tables in a stores that did NOT have a mandatory "gratuity or service charge" for large parties. if it is a large enough party one server usually get that table and only that table so they can concentrate their efforts in an efficent and singular manner.

First of all taking the order is usually a royal pain in ass esp if you have a mix of adults and children. first you have to get the drinks straight. everone seems to order out of logical turn.

then there is ordering appitisers. then ordering the main course. again some know what they want other dawdle along and only truely make up their mind at the absolute last minute ALONG with multipule special requests and subs (if allowed) and manner of doneness.

ALL of the above takes concentration, lots of gritting of the teeth, laughing at stupid jokes, some feined conversation, good memory, a external "good attitude" and a smiling face.

Well, sorry, but... that's all part of the job when you're waiting tables.

I've never delivered pizza, but I've spent years working in a restaurant, either as a kitchen help, preparing drinks at the bar, or waiting tables. Making the ordering process run smoothly (getting the guests to order in a sensible turn, getting all orders together and back to the kitchen, etc.) is part of the job, and an experienced waiter who knows his job should be able to get that done, no matter if there's three or ten people at the table.

Of course, that doesn't excuse asshole behavior such as the baseball team you mentioned. But people can suck in small groups just as much as in large ones. Still, your post did give me a reason for the "service charge" that I hadn't thought of before: due to the US tipping culture, if one server is assigned exclusively to one large party, he'll of course miss out on other guests (and potential tips), with only the one party as a chance to make his "quota" in tips for the night. So, under that premise, it does make sense tacking on a "service charge" for larger groups.

And, yeah: if the mandatory charge is clearly shown to potential customers, then their placing of the order means they are agreeing to make it part of their bill. Trying to weasel out of it afterwards is trying to pay less than they have essentially agreed to.

[HYHYBT]

Well, sorry, but... that's all part of the job when you're waiting tables.

Another usage of "life's not fair" as an excuse for keeping it that way.

[Andara Bledin]

No, that was not an attempt to keep the status quo, only an admonition that it currently is the status quo, so it's not like it got worse when nobody was looking.

^-.-^

[Canarr]

Another usage of "life's not fair" as an excuse for keeping it that way.

I'm not even talking about your crappy tipping system, so chill. My point is merely that dealing with problematic diners - ordering out of order, unruly children, people changing their mind and wanting substitutes, etc. - is part of a waiter's job, and a waiter is expected to deal with it. Just as anyone working a job in the service industry is expected to deal with their SCs while keeping a smile on their face.

[Evandril]

I'm not even talking about your crappy tipping system, so chill. My point is merely that dealing with problematic diners - ordering out of order, unruly children, people changing their mind and wanting substitutes, etc. - is part of a waiter's job, and a waiter is expected to deal with it. Just as anyone working a job in the service industry is expected to deal with their SCs while keeping a smile on their face.

And, according to the IRS, they are expected to get a reasonable tip...

[Canarr]

And, according to the IRS, they are expected to get a reasonable tip...

If you say so. That has what, exactly, to do with my post, though?

[HYHYBT]

Since this whole thread is about whether restaurants can make you pay a mandatory "tip," it has EVERYTHING to do with it.

One of the problems of working in that field is that people, and especially groups, often stiff you on the tip. Meanwhile, you have to pay tax as if you did receive it. A possible solution: tips are no longer optional in certain circumstances. Response: but that's just how it is when you have that job, just deal with it.

See? All connected.

[Canarr]

See? All connected.

It might be, if that was what I said. It wasn't, however; I merely inquired originally about the reasoning for this statement

A large party is more work for the server, with a high likelihood of less tip, than the same number of people split up over a larger number of tables.

since that wasn't something I had ever experienced in this line of work.

Racket Man then answered with a long post boiling down to, "Well, it's chaos, everybody ordering out of turn, changing their minds, and there's always a guy who thinks he's funny, and the server has to put up with it with a smile!", followed by stories of people in large groups being assholes. To that, I replied with, "Well, that's part of the job, dealing with customers."

However, I did end the very same post with

Of course, that doesn't excuse asshole behavior such as the baseball team you mentioned. But people can suck in small groups just as much as in large ones. Still, your post did give me a reason for the "service charge" that I hadn't thought of before: due to the US tipping culture, if one server is assigned exclusively to one large party, he'll of course miss out on other guests (and potential tips), with only the one party as a chance to make his "quota" in tips for the night. So, under that premise, it does make sense tacking on a "service charge" for larger groups.

having been reminded that under the US' sucky tipping custom, a server with one large group is more likely to lose out on tips (and thus, on a part of his livelihood) than one with several small parties.

But noticing that would of course have required reading my entire post, instead of erupting in righteous indignation at the first sentence.

[tropicsgoddess]

Two words: false imprisonment. I get that if it's X amount of people in the group the restaurant tacks on the gratuity. It's the customer's discretion to tip but if they won't pay up the gratuity then either call the cops and/or ban their asses.

[HYHYBT]

Stores are allowed in certain circumstances to detain suspected shoplifters until the police show up. There is no logical reason this would be any different.

As for the other... if I misunderstood a post, I apologize.

[Slytovhand]

For the first part of the above few posts - firstly, don't call it a 'mandatory gratuity' - call it a service charge!!! A tip is supposed to be, by definition, voluntary... and that's what the whole argument started with!

Secondly - HYHYBT - what states, and in what circumstances? And, very importantly - who can the hold? All 15 diners???

[HYHYBT]

HYHYBT - what states, and in what circumstances? And, very importantly - who can the hold? All 15 diners???

Well, first, I said *stores* can hold *shoplifters,* and that logically there is no valid reason for attempted dine-and-dash to be any different legally than shoplifting. I didn't say it *isn't* legally different. I don't know. But nobody in this thread has really explained why not paying a restaurant bill (regardless of whether a mandatory, known-about-in-advance-as-such item is LABELED "gratuity" or not) should not be treated as shoplifting.

The fee, regardless of name, is made every bit as plain up front as, say, that a steak and potato is $15. If you have a problem with your steak, you may well complain during the meal and get it corrected or removed from the bill... and if, knowing that you are required to pay a certain amount of "tip" no matter what, you don't believe the service justifies that, likewise you can complain about that *when it happens.* But once the meal is over, you don't get to say "I don't think that steak was worth $15 after all. Here's $5, and consider yourself lucky I'm paying at all."

As for which states.... how should I know? I do have a source (though on a site with as many retail employees as this one has, for *this* it should be unnecessary) but it's not specific. At the time this thread was last active, one of my classes was using this textbook, which contains

Although most states have statutes that permit merchants or their employees to detain customers suspected of shoplifting, this detention must be a reasonable one.

In the absence of evidence showing that book to be false, I see no reason not to assume it to be true. And of course the fact that stores DO in fact routinely hold people for shoplifting is, itself, a strong indication that they're allowed to do so.

And I apologize for not answering faster. I didn't have the book handy the day the update email for this thread came in, so I saved it to answer later and promptly forgot about it.

[Andara Bledin]

The fee, regardless of name, is made every bit as plain up front as, say, that a steak and potato is $15.

There is no "regardless of the name" when dealing with 'contract' or legal matters.

A "cash discount" is merely a reverse "service fee" placed on credit transactions. However, a service fee is expressly illegal in many places (and against the contract terms with the credit cards), while a cash discount is not only legal, but in some cases, encouraged.

What you call them and how they are legally defined is exceedingly important. It can make the difference between collecting on a debt and paying a fine.

^-.-^