It's not required by law to tip your waiter

Does Belks pay their employees, or does the browsing customer looking for a pair of pants (and I'm talking literal, and directly here, not metaphorically)? So if I don't into the store for say, a week or tow, the employee STILL gets their paycheck, despite me not being present for those two weeks, correct?

 

Not many have profit sharing, friend. Not many at all, comparatively speaking.

My point is that the company 'employee' isn't paid by the company. It depends solely on the generosity of the patron.

 

Which is why it's a bad business madel. It makes the customer the boss with having an indirect payroll. Instead of being sued for not paying for services customers can be trated like crap if they don't carry out the theoretical employer requirement. Overall there is no stability in being a waiter for this reason.

 

I guess that depends on what you mean by "not many".

This survey of employees by CENEWS shows that a fairly significant portion do.



I tried several times to find a direct link to the article and survey this table came from. I could not locate it.

Nevertheless.... 19% of all companies, in the survey, employees reported having a profit sharing program.

That's been my personal experience as well. About 3 of the previous jobs, had profit sharing for experience full time company employees.

Additionally, about 18% had ESOP, which is employee stock in the company, either given for free, or with an ultra low cost. For example, Walmart at one time (not sure if they still do), gave out shares in Walmart to it's employees for $2. Stock is currently selling for $76 dollars. That's an indirect form of profit sharing, since each month you get dividends from the stock you own, through the ESOP program.

Additionally, company matches to 401K, are also considered profit sharing, because they are tied to profits. Most companies only match, when they make a profit. That has certainly been the case at every company I have worked for.

So to the point, I don't know if you can support the claim that "not many" have profit sharing plans, when at least 20% do.

 

The customer is always the boss. Always.

Say that you change the system, so there is no tips. The waiter says "I don't care if you don't like the rolls, you are not my boss". The customer gets up and leaves. The store runs out of money, and everyone is fired.

The customer is always... as in always.... the boss. Whether you have a employer between you and the customer, it does not matter. Either way, the customer is who determines whether or not they give their money, for the service and goods provided.

That never changes. Never.

And again, I'd much rather have control over tips, than have the company charge me an extra $8 by force, and give it to the waiters.

Further, I still don't grasp the concept you are giving, that waiters are giving crap service because you don't pay the tip. Tips are always paid on your way out of the store. How would the waiter know that you are not going to give a tip before you leave? They wouldn't. Thus, if you get bad service, it's simply because you have a bad waiter.

The only other explanation, is that you have a reputation as never tipping, even with good service. Now if that's the case, I would submit that the problem might not be the system, or the waiter, but possibly the guy in the mirror.

 

Profitable though, which is why it's in place.

 

Please, don't use the 401K crap as 'profit sharing'. It isn't. It's a huge tax write off, and nothing more. I had an employer who 'fudged around' with the 401K contributions he 'supposedly' contributed. He went out of business, and was charged with criminal fraud (he didn't go to jail though, because rich people don't go to jail. They pay fines.) The 401K thing is a VERY poor example, to reference 'profit sharing'.

Walmart is a different beast altogether. They pay so poorly, and skirt the law with such skill and devious regularity, they're in their own category, and corporate entities salivate at their 'success', trying to duplicate it.

 

If waiters understood this system then they would be better at performing their jobs. Meaning having a better overall positive attitude which is part of their job.

 

I didn't. Did you read what I wrote? I said "So to the point, I don't know if you can support the claim that "not many" have profit sharing plans, when at least 20% do."

Yet 78% of all corporations have 401Ks with a match. Obviously I didn't include the 78% 401K matches, or I would not have come up with the 20% number. Stop saying dumb things that make you look incompetent at basic reading.

Nevertheless, 401K matches are nearly all tied to profits. It *IS* a form of profit sharing whether you like it or not.

Rich people don't go to jail? Tell that to Bernie Madoff. Tell that to Jeffrey Skilling. Better yet, stop being a pathetic liar.

Wrong, and we've proven that several times. Walmart pays better than comparable jobs. Stop being a pathetic liar.

Prove it.

- - - Updated - - -

I find they do. I have rarely had a waiter that didn't perform well, and most had a very positive attitude. The few, and I do mean few, that didn't, ended up without a tip. That's how that works. It's a good system.

 

No fail. The system is not about profits. In Russia, they don't have a tip system. The service is terrible, and the businesses are very profitable.

Has nothing to do with profits. If we didn't have a tip system, they would simply charge a ton more for food, and the waiters would get a larger pay check. The result would be that the waiters still get the 'tips' only by the company charging *YOU* the customer more for food, and paying the waiters more money.

Only now since the waiters get the 'tips' regardless of their conduct, you end up with lousy service, just like Russia restaurants.

 

hey sonny Morgan Freeman here, did you happen to mention rounding up bucks? One night at Shawshank, Andy and I was minding our business when the warden came in and announced he was rounding up all the buck queers...said he had his belly full of buck queers... Andy, being the proper and learnin man he was, reminded the warden we called em bull queers.... well old warden is a man who doesn't like being told something with same difference as that between nickels and dimes... to tell you the truth I don't give a shoit...but warden saw things differently and had Andy thrown into the common pot with all the bucks...poor Andy learned there ain't a nickels worth a difference between a hungry bull or buck, and there ain't no manager to complain to at Shawshank...that was the longest night of Andy's life

 

funny lol. just give good service.

 

If it isn't about profits, then why don't corporate entities like these, pay their own employees? It IS all about the profit. Gimme a break with that nonsense. What a ludicrous and asinine statement.

 

401K's have very little to do with the company 'sharing' the profit. More about creative bookkeeping, write offs and money shuffling. If they were actually interested in 'sharing' profits, they'd just cut the employee a check (just like all the execs and CEO types get). Paper shuffling, and creative bookkeeping. That's all.


There is an 'occasional' sacrificial lamb that gets thrown to the wolves and take the fall for others. That's hardly the same thing.

 

I can't believe with all the problems in this world, this thread would get over 560 answers. Some of the biggest problems facing us today, don't get half that much.

 

You are correct. It is my understanding that an automatic gratuity is figured into the price of the meal throughout Europe; it is, therefore, mandatory there.

 

But wait staff are paid less than other staff precisely because they're expected to make a bunch of money from tips. The system has developed in the US such that you're expected to tip if the service wasn't terrible.

- - - Updated - - -

There are some problems that actually relate to us personally and that we can actually address.

 

Why isn't a 401k profit sharing? If a corporation does a match, which in general is up to 4% of an employee contribution, how isn't earning an additional 4% tax free not sharing? You again, no idea sky is falling guy.

 

So let's take this a different direction, If no customers come in and buy a pair of pants, does the business have any dollars to pay out to the employee?

 

Yeah your right. Maybe next time they won't spit on your food either.

 

Why don't you learn about how a business succeeds before making comments on things you know nothing about. It would help with the discussion. You see, there is no way to even discuss this with you because you are so far off of what is money shared and why employees are necessary.

 

i will tip very generously if the service is very good, heck ill still tip above the "required" 20% if it just get decent service. I dont look at it as an obligation, but knowing most waiters only make like $2.15/hr their livelihood relies on our tips to eat and pay the bills so unless the services is totally crap i will leave something. Plus to be honest it works in my favor considering all the extras i do get and the lowered bills lol. Trust me, go ahead and tip a bartender $20 on a $29 tab i guarantee the next time you show up the tab will be a good $10 cheaper even after ordering the same things. Take care of them and they will take care of you and your wallet .

 

Legally, you are not required to tip any waiter for service.

But if a resteraunt lists a 19% charge for large parties, due to a large table being reserved and the amount of labor required to serve you, you need to pay that.

If you don't, you can be arrested.

 

Because it's a relatively simple thing for the average person to see, how screwed up our society is today (and it isn't the poor who screwed it up either).

- - - Updated - - -

Do they write that off at the end of the year, or does it come directly 'off the top', of the profiteer's heap? Answer that HONESTLY, and you've answered the question. Oh, and THEN, better hope Wall Street gamblers keep doing well, and living like the pigs in mud that they are, or kiss even that goodbye.

 

No...of course not, but you're diluting the point.

Belk PAYS THEIR OWN PAYROLL, do they not? Additionally, THEY reap the profit. In your case, the employer reaps the profit, and has no payroll whatsoever to contend with, to begin with! Are you able to do 'in that direction'?