Restaurant detains group of diners for failing to pay mandatory tip

[HYHYBT]

All right: words matter. Is the word "mandatory" too vague, then?

[Andara Bledin]

Irrelevant - straw man. The word "mandatory" was never under question.

It's the noun that's important, not the adjective.

^-.-^

[Lace Neil Singer]

I for one would like to hear the restaurant's side before I judge on this. A lot of these stories seem to stem from righteous indignation from the customer's side, with them painting themselves and their family as golden shining angels. Kinda makes me think "They doth protest too much" and wondering just what the other side would say, if asked.

Not commenting on the tipping thing as I am English, we have a different system and I don't want to display my ignorance on the American tip system of which I know very little about.

[Ginger Tea]

Not commenting on the tipping thing as I am English, we have a different system and I don't want to display my ignorance on the American tip system of which I know very little about.

Tipping and sales tax, both things to be well informed about before heading over the pond.
Our prices include both, I don't think there is a single establishment that requires a tip, some might display the price excluding VAT and have the inc in smaller print, but at the end of the day shopping or dinning if it says £19.99 (inc vat) then that is what we pay not a penny more, unless you say "keep the change"

[Lace Neil Singer]

I always tip at a restaurant if the service is good, tho; if someone has worked hard and deserves a bit extra. However, if service is bad, then they're getting nothing. XD And I won't go to that restaurant again.

[HYHYBT]

Irrelevant - straw man. The word "mandatory" was never under question.

It's the noun that's important, not the adjective.

^-.-^

Wrong. Adjectives modify nouns. Whatever the noun otherwise means, modifying it with the adjective "mandatory" means it is not optional.

[Andara Bledin]

It doesn't matter what adjective you use if the noun is unenforceable, and that's why this particular adjective is of questionable relevance.

^-.-^

[Nyoibo]

When did this turn into a debate on the rules of the english language?

[Andara Bledin]

Technically, it always was; it just took a while to distill down to it.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

It doesn't matter what adjective you use if the noun is unenforceable, and that's why this particular adjective is of questionable relevance.

^-.-^

Why?

(And no, dammit, "why?" is a perfectly sufficient post all on its own no matter what the software says. This part added to make it stop saying it.)

[senor boogie woogie]

I have worked jobs where I have had to rely on tips from customers to live on because the company I worked for would not pay me a living wage. Waiting tables paid $2.13 an hour. Then I worked in a casino making $4.25/hr plus tips. The tips were obviously more than what the company was paying me. Good deal for them.

In China, the 5 star hotels will charge a 15% service charge to the bill. This is really annoying to me because they will advertise a dinner that is $100 plus 15% service charge. Why not just call it $115 in the advertisement? The hotel is not giving the waitstaff the 15%, they make a wage and no one tips in China (thankfully) because it is not the culture.

I like to have someone plainly state the price of their goods and services without surcharges and fees. The restaurants need to be paying their servers the full minimum wage and be allowed to accept tips if people are willing to do so.

Finally, it is not rude nor is it the law or a rule that I have to tip anybody. Don't like making minimum wage or less, get another job. To restaurant people, if you cannot pay your waitstaff at least $7-8 bucks an hour, you shouldn't be in business, and don't give me the song and dance about barely making a profit. If you paid 8 bucks an hour, this boils down to charging about 10 cents more per item of food you serve.

[Caractacus_Potts]

That's why some restaurants call it a "Service Charge for parties of 6 or more." At that point, it's no longer a gratuity but a part of the cost of dining there.

Restaurants can detain you for failing to pay your bill. However, in this case, the legal technicality is going to come down to whether or not it's classified as a "Gratuity" or "Service Charge"

I didn't read all the comments so I don't know if anyone corrected this already. You can not just call something a "service charge" and presto it is now a "service charge" instead of a gratuity. In order for a service charge to be valid it must be agreed to in a signed and dated contract prior to the service being provide, a note in a menu does not meet the legal requirements. More importantly the money from teh service charge must be reported to the IRS as a business income by the restaurant.

The diners were under no legal obligation to pay the gratuity; however, the restaurant could have sued them in civil court as this is a civil matter not a legal matter. On the other hand if an employee of the restaurant physically restrained the diners then the employee/employees are certainly open to legal charges for unlawful detainment.

[crashhelmet]

I didn't read all the comments so I don't know if anyone corrected this already. You can not just call something a "service charge" and presto it is now a "service charge" instead of a gratuity. In order for a service charge to be valid it must be agreed to in a signed and dated contract prior to the service being provide, a note in a menu does not meet the legal requirements. More importantly the money from teh service charge must be reported to the IRS as a business income by the restaurant.

The diners were under no legal obligation to pay the gratuity; however, the restaurant could have sued them in civil court as this is a civil matter not a legal matter. On the other hand if an employee of the restaurant physically restrained the diners then the employee/employees are certainly open to legal charges for unlawful detainment.

From THE 20 PERCENT MANDATORY SERVICE CHARGE IN NEW YORK CITY FOR LARGE PARTIES

Rule 5-59 of the CPL provides that restaurants are prohibited from adding a surcharge to the cost of items listed on the menu, i.e., if they want to raise prices, they must change the individual prices on the menu, not just add a surcharge. However, bona-fide service charges for persons sharing one meal, a personal minimum amount, a required surcharge for groups of eight or more, are legal if they are printed on the menu, and take-out businesses are exempt.

By choosing to patronize the establishment, they are agreeing to their established rules. The customers have the right to leave and choose another establishment if they don't wish to abide by the requirements of dining there. This is no different than bars and clubs that force you to a certain drink minimum. If you don't like it, you can leave and go elsewhere.

Yes, anything classified as a "Service Charge" has to be reported as income for the establishment. That money, in most cases, also legally belongs to the establishment and does not need to be paid out to the server(s). Whether or not they do so is their choice. Some states have been passing laws to ensure the server gets all of the money though.

[Caractacus_Potts]

From THE 20 PERCENT MANDATORY SERVICE CHARGE IN NEW YORK CITY FOR LARGE PARTIES


By choosing to patronize the establishment, they are agreeing to their established rules. The customers have the right to leave and choose another establishment if they don't wish to abide by the requirements of dining there. This is no different than bars and clubs that force you to a certain drink minimum. If you don't like it, you can leave and go elsewhere.

Yes, anything classified as a "Service Charge" has to be reported as income for the establishment. That money, in most cases, also legally belongs to the establishment and does not need to be paid out to the server(s). Whether or not they do so is their choice. Some states have been passing laws to ensure the server gets all of the money though.

I can't really speak to the NY Consumer Protection Law Section referenced in the quote and article. The link to the section does not work, a google search brings up nothing and a search of the NY Consumer Protection site also brings up nothing.

I do have to say it would be odd to find a ruling protecting restaurants put out by an agency charged with protecting consumers.

I only know of one actual case I have read about where someone was arrested for not paying an auto gratuity, coincidentally enough in NY. The prosecutor determined that a gratuity, by definition, can not be mandatory and dropped the charges. The person sued the police and the restaurant. The suit against the police was dropped; the suit against the restaurant was settled out of court with an undisclosed amount of money being paid by the restaurant to a charity of the person choice.

The definition of "service charge" was something I got from a legal website.

Who knows, maybe things have changed since then. I can't find any links to the court case or the legal website with the service charge definition so I suppose what I say has no more weight than the CPL reference.