Re:Observations from a Tipless Restaurant
by lisper on Tuesday July 30, 2013 @12:54PM
(#6128253)
> Does that mean we scrap the goal because of one problem?
Of course not. But it doesn't mean being complacent and living with a bad solution. There are so many better ways to provide pay for performance. For example: one could change the protocol so that instead of a baseline of zero service charge, the baseline is, say, 15%. This is part of the bill. But then you are free to add more for exceptionally good service or subtract for exceptionally bad service. Fewer people will stiff waiters if they have to be proactive in order to do so.
BTW (and this is a rhetorical question): why should pay-for-performance be limited to waiters? Why not extend it to the cooks as well? Why not let people just pay what they thought the meal was worth? Why not extend it to other professions? Pay your doctor, your lawyer, any service provider, what you thought the service was worth after it has been provided?
Of course not. But it doesn't mean being complacent and living with a bad solution. There are so many better ways to provide pay for performance. For example: one could change the protocol so that instead of a baseline of zero service charge, the baseline is, say, 15%. This is part of the bill. But then you are free to add more for exceptionally good service or subtract for exceptionally bad service. Fewer people will stiff waiters if they have to be proactive in order to do so.
BTW (and this is a rhetorical question): why should pay-for-performance be limited to waiters? Why not extend it to the cooks as well? Why not let people just pay what they thought the meal was worth? Why not extend it to other professions? Pay your doctor, your lawyer, any service provider, what you thought the service was worth after it has been provided?