Quote:
Originally Posted by rslater
I don't understand how you don't understand what he's trying to say. His example was so simple. Its like basic common sense what he's saying. Yes I agree its an INFORMAL agreemant between the restrauant and employee that is NOT inforcable by law. HOWEVER, his example would demonstrate an instance in which he would lose his OWN personal money. The $20 at the start of the night belongs to him, and at the end of the night he's left with $17 from his $20. He paid out of his OWN pocket $3 to the bartenders, kitchen and hostesses. I'm not sure exactly if a manager would say he doesn't have to tip out because he made no tips, however, in principal he would have too pay out that $3.
|
Oh no. Trust me, I understand his example completely in a mathematical level. It's on the principle that I don't understand why tips to the kitchen should be borne out of the waiters out-of-pocket cash when tips are not present.
If what he's saying is correct that the kitchen gets 3% (as per November's example)
regardless of whether a tip was left by the customer or not, that's not a tip. That's a 3% Kitchen commission. Commission because despite a tip not being present, the 3% seems like a mandatory entitlement for the kitchen.
If it IS commission, then those are not the employee's (waiter's) responsibility but the employer's. By which meaning November should NEVER be paying out-of-pocket.
Tips in my definition = Gratuity. Meaning that if no gratuity is available, nobody gets benefits. However, if gratuity is left by the customer, then the benefits are shared between waiter & kitchen staff.
Disclaimer: I may have a limited knowledge as I've never worked the food industry, but I'm seriously going on common sense here.