> In America, at least in restaurants, employers are allowed to pay a lower minimum wage to tipped employees. So tips are an essential part of a servers compensation and should not be considered optional.

This actually varies state by state. In Alaska, California, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington the minimum wage does not change tipped vs non-tipped. Also in other states if the pay after tips do not meet the state minimum wage the employer is required to make up this difference.

If you actually look at the data tipped employees make significantly more vs median income in countries with tipping than without.

> If you can't afford that, then you can't afford to eat out, choose a different option.

I think this works if we're talking about a full restaurant, If we're talking about a mostly empty restaurant then even a 5% tip is money that the server would have not otherwise had, pretty certain they'd choose more money over less.

Then why call it a tip? The cynicism is just unbearable. If it's a tip people are going to have the option of opting out, disregarding any unwritten social norm that contradicts the actual word used.

> So tips are an essential part of a servers compensation and should not be considered optional.

Actually, if tips don't bring tipped minimum wage to minimum wage, employers are required to increase pay to minimum wage.

While this is true, good luck asking for it.

employment lawyers love when managers refuse to honor their payment obligations. Treble damages.

This comment is very disconnected from the reality of service industry wage theft. Employment lawyers rarely bother with a case where the potential payout is a few thousand dollars.

In theory the federal or state department of labor could do something without the worker needing a lawyer. The federal DoL is useless in such cases and most state DoLs don't seem to do much either.

My understanding is if an employee who gets paid largely in tips isnt making more than min wage, that employee is almost always let go or quits. Employment layers dont love trying to prove a case that is pretty unlikely to be provable.

They can always find a reason, such as "so and so customer complained about your level of service and I can't have any complaints as a business owner" which on its face is a legitimate reason to fire someone.

^This is how it is in practice

You would rather be let go for performance reasons rather than they will pay you difference in 5$

I don't understand how it's the customer's fault if managers are blatantly stealing wages. That sounds like someone else's problem to solve. If servers make it public, I'll stop going to that place, but preemptively tipping to avoid illegal labor practices feels like a bad solution.

It this lower wage true for states like California?

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/minimum-wage/tipped 16.50 in California, 20 for fast food workers

as the other commenters didn't answer the question:

No, it is not true for California

I would not be surprised if those poor waiters make more money than their customers.

Americans pride themselves on their rugged individuality but deep down it is all very collectivist.

Explain to me how a society with minimal well care, where people would rather die of a heart attack than get taken to a hospital, where you need to save your entire life to afford a mediocre education for your children... How is that a collectivist society?

I love that we're just like "so FYI we decided this particular class of worker is okay to pay less than a living wage but to compensate if they do really good at their job, we're going to make it a social norm that people pay more than their bill costs and they keep the difference."

Wouldn't it make far more sense to just pay them a living wage and charge what that costs and be done? It's genuinely the only part of eating out that annoys me is it ends with a math quiz.

Nah. 10% is standard, 15% is they did something good besides what's expected, 20% is amazing.

But I personally have chosen a different option because it's just exploitive all the way around. The business trying to exploit it's employees, the employees exploiting customers (10% being pushed up to 15%).

Why then 15%? Why not $10 per hour of service for all tables assigned to the waiter?

Why chef who is actually prepping your dish got fixed rate but pretty girl should get percentage of the total bill?

If I order a $100 bottle of wine, should I add $10 for the delivery from wine room? And extra 5$ for the opening? And $5 for refill?

Because what was once an active decision became a default, what was a default became an expectation, what was an expectation became an effective-requirement.

And lo, norms are made, the ratchet turns, culture solidifies, a new line written to the social contract. And tip-dependent workers have non-optional tipping.

If you really want a logic to follow strictly — any worker class whose wages are depressed by expected tipping should be tipped

> you need to consider (at least) a 15% tip as part of the base cost

No, I don't need to do anything. Restaurants are free to charge a service fee and state that plainly on the menu, as many already do. Otherwise it's optional and I will treat it as such.