Waitstaff pays for "walk out" tabs - defend this practice

[drewtwo99]

@VinylTurnip

That’s the thing, though… it really isn’t, and shouldn’t be.

In a world where waiters had impeccable precognitive powers, I agree that they would be irresponsible not to put their skills to good use. (Those who for some reason continued working as waiters, despite their ability to win the Powerball jackpot.)

But nobody does, and you can’t always tell who the dine-and-dashers are by sight. I had some teenagers run out the door on me once, and they looked like all the other teenagers I served who did pay their bill. They weren’t Dickensian ragamuffins with sooty faces, nor were they wearing striped shirts and Hamburglar masks.

And see how long your employment continues when you begin turning away customers at the door. “Sorry folks, you look like you might be deadbeats.” The only safeguard would be to demand a credit card up front, to run a tab like bars do. But few restaurants are going to implement that policy, especially when they can just make the waiter pay for the theft.

I was laughing so hard it was hard for me to breathe, let alone read all of this.

As Little Nemo correctly read, I was being sarcastic indeed. Or at the very least, playing devil’s advocate very poorly to be funny.

I’m sorry that your powers of perception weren’t strong enough to peg the lowlife teenage scum who ran out on you.

[Rowanchilde]

@drewtwo99

I’ll defend it:

It is YOUR responsbility as a waiter to suss out who is trustworthy to be eating at a restaurant, and who is going to responsibly pay. It is also your responsibility as a waiter to offer service so good that no one would leave without paying, even those who walked into the establishment with intent to do so from the beginning.
How’d I do?

You have got to be kidding…

[MandaJo]

Another problem is that this requirement is that it basically requires a waiter or waitress to risk their personal safety. Googleing “Waitress run over” produces a a long list of waitresses run over in parking lots. And I am sure there have been waiters and waitresses shoved out of the way, knocked down, whatever, when confronting people in the store. When someone holds up a McDonalds, we don’t expect the counter person to risk their personal safety; in fact, most retail like places will fire you for confronting a robber. It’s not clear to me how this isn’t a double standard.

That is where I think lawsuits could and should and must happen: if I were orphaned because my mom had to either confront a dude running out on a $12 tab or lose her job, I sure hope a lawyer would sue the restaurant on my behalf.

[drewtwo99]

Oh I’m 100% deadly serious.

In fact, no fewer than 6 times in my life had I planned on ducking out on the check, but the waiter/waitress was so good, I decided to pay anyway. I made a mention of this and they chuckled, and I just stared at them without emotion, until they walked away with my money.

Isn’t this how everyone operates?

[Rowanchilde]

@drewtwo99

Oh I’m 100% deadly serious.

In fact, no fewer than 6 times in my life had I planned on ducking out on the check, but the waiter/waitress was so good, I decided to pay anyway. I made a mention of this and they chuckled, and I just stared at them without emotion, until they walked away with my money.

Isn’t this how everyone operates?

I’ll bet you are a fabulous tipper too

[mhendo]

Here’s the Slate article mentioned by the OP, if anyone’s interested.

I’m happy to live in a state civilized enough to have made it illegal for employers to screw their employees in this way.

In my early 20s, i worked as a waiter in a few different countries, and while i was lucky enough never to have a dine-and-dash experience, i had friends and colleagues who did. In some of my jobs, it would have been very easy for the customers to leave without paying, and the fact that it never happened to me was probably just the luck of the draw.

One place i worked was a popular lunch spot for tourists, and i often had the front patio. To ring in orders, collect drinks, and pick up the food, i had to go back into the restaurant, out of sight of any of my tables. A group of people could easily leave and get to the parking lot (only about 20 yards away) in the time it took me to make a trip back to the kitchen. The idea that a skipped check can only ever result from waiter inattention or negligence is fucking asinine.

[AnaMen]

@MandaJo

Another problem is that this requirement is that it basically requires a waiter or waitress to risk their personal safety. Googleing “Waitress run over” produces a a long list of waitresses run over in parking lots. And I am sure there have been waiters and waitresses shoved out of the way, knocked down, whatever, when confronting people in the store. When someone holds up a McDonalds, we don’t expect the counter person to risk their personal safety; in fact, most retail like places will fire you for confronting a robber. It’s not clear to me how this isn’t a double standard.

That is where I think lawsuits could and should and must happen: if I were orphaned because my mom had to either confront a dude running out on a $12 tab or lose her job, I sure hope a lawyer would sue the restaurant on my behalf.

You’d be orphaned because your mom overestimated the value of $12. The consequence of her not getting the customer to pay is that she’d pay out of pocket, NOT that she’d lose her job.

Defense of the practice:

1. Wait staff typically take home far more per hour than their equivalently-skilled retail counterparts. For a job that requires zero education, certification, professional training, etc. the money is decent (please note that I did NOT say the job was easy or low-effort). Consider the monetary loss from dashers as a sort of breakage. Even if you had to give 25 cents an hour back to the restaurant to cover this cost, the job is still worth keeping.
2. Instead of being given the opportunity to pay for the food out of pocket, the employee that loses his or her employer’s money would instead be fired. That isn’t better.
3. While it is not always easy, or even possible, wait staff are in the best position to notice if someone is leaving without paying. A staff of people personally invested in making sure people don’t leave without paying will keep the number of times it happens as low as possible. The staff does have some control of the situation most of the time. The rest is “breakage”… Staff knows it can happen and can self-insure to prepare for it and pay attention to prevent it.

[Ferret_Herder]

Great. That description fits most retail workers too, barring #1. Should store clerks be held financially liable for shoplifting, since they might be letting their friends steal? Should family restaurants/diners that serve cheap food (this resulting in lower average tips) be less likely to charge waitstaff since they’re poorer than higher-end waiters, or more likely since it’s a smaller check?

[Tapioca_Dextrin]

Surely the dine and dash scourge could easily be eliminated by having some poorly trained but heavily armed security guards at all exits. In addition, higher priced establishments should run credit checks on all customers prior to ordering a meal. Problem solved.

[AnaMen]

@Ferret_Herder

Great. That description fits most retail workers too, barring #1. Should store clerks be held financially liable for shoplifting, since they might be letting their friends steal? Should family restaurants/diners that serve cheap food (this resulting in lower average tips) be less likely to charge waitstaff since they’re poorer than higher-end waiters, or more likely since it’s a smaller check?

You can’t just throw away #1. It’s the crux of the argument.

The cost of the meal is irrelevant. Staff at more expensive restaurants would typically be making more money.

And before anyone claims otherwise, I tip 20 - 25% post-tax, and I even pre-bus my own table.

[mhendo]

@AnaMen

1. Wait staff typically take home far more per hour than their equivalently-skilled retail counterparts. For a job that requires zero education, certification, professional training, etc. the money is decent (please note that I did NOT say the job was easy or low-effort). Consider the monetary loss from dashers as a sort of breakage. Even if you had to give 25 cents an hour back to the restaurant to cover this cost, the job is still worth keeping.

That’s not a defense of the practice. It’s a rationalization based on the idea that, if a person makes more than you think they deserve, it is fine for employers to treat them unfairly. And if the job still pays above minimum wage, even after they’ve been unfairly treated, then what are they complaining about?

@AnaMen

2. Instead of being given the opportunity to pay for the food out of pocket, the employee that loses his or her employer’s money would instead be fired. That isn’t better.

Actually, this is an even stronger argument against making waitstaff pay for dine-and-dash customers.

If a waiter does, indeed, have so many customers who skip out that you suspect dishonesty or fraud, then you should fire them. No-one here has argued that people shouldn’t be disciplined or fired for incompetence. I would support firing someone who was either dishonest or incompetent enough to continually lose money for the employer.

If the employer truly believes that a waiter is incompetent or negligent, then fire the waiter. If an employer knows that the occasional dine-and-dash in almost inevitable in the industry, don’t make your employees pay for something beyond their control.

The system of charging waitstaff simply reflects poor management on the part of employers.

[mhendo]

@AnaMen

And before anyone claims otherwise, I tip 20 - 25% post-tax, and I even pre-bus my own table.

This is irrelevant to the silliness of your arguments.

[VinylTurnip]

@drewtwo99

I’m sorry that your powers of perception weren’t strong enough to peg the lowlife teenage scum who ran out on you.

Insult to injury, they looked like rich kids from one of the nearby country club subdivisions. Lowlife and high society!

[AnaMen]

@mhendo

That’s not a defense of the practice. It’s a rationalization based on the idea that, if a person makes more than you think they deserve, it is fine for employers to treat them unfairly. And if the job still pays above minimum wage, even after they’ve been unfairly treated, then what are they complaining about?Actually, this is an even stronger argument against making waitstaff pay for dine-and-dash customers.

If a waiter does, indeed, have so many customers who skip out that you suspect dishonesty or fraud, then you should fire them. No-one here has argued that people shouldn’t be disciplined or fired for incompetence. I would support firing someone who was either dishonest or incompetent enough to continually lose money for the employer.

If the employer truly believes that a waiter is incompetent or negligent, then fire the waiter. If an employer knows that the occasional dine-and-dash in almost inevitable in the industry, don’t make your employees pay for something beyond their control.

The system of charging waitstaff simply reflects poor management on the part of employers.

Don’t put words in my mouth. I did not ever say that they make more than they “deserve.”

The issue is not whether the employee is dishonest, fraudulent, or incompetent. A restaurant cannot remain open if it is not profitable. If no one is motivated to keep close watch on diners who have not paid, how will the restaurant manage to absorb the loss? No individual restaurant created the “normal” situation of diners eating first and then paying. I’m sure the restaurant reaching into its bottomless pockets and covering the loss from these meals sounds very appealing, but well over half of restaurants fail in their first year and when they do, bye bye jobs for everyone on staff. It’s a tough business.

[AnaMen]

@mhendo

This is irrelevant to the silliness of your arguments.

Well, you’ve already claimed I think they make more than they should. If so, why would I augment it further?

[even_sven]

Sure you can throw away number one, as it’s absurd. Money doesn’t make an unfair practice fair. My white collar job can’t tell me “Hey, you make more than the average American, so it’s no biggie if we fine you twenty bucks every time the temperature goes above 90.”

The practice is a grossly unjust. If restaurants want to hire (and pay for) cheap labor that can’t be trusted not to scam them, they need to eat the costs associated with that, not pass it on to innocent employees.

[running_coach]

@AnaMen

Don’t put words in my mouth. I did not ever say that they make more than they “deserve.”

The issue is not whether the employee is dishonest, fraudulent, or incompetent. A restaurant cannot remain open if it is not profitable. If no one is motivated to keep close watch on diners who have not paid, how will the restaurant manage to absorb the loss? No individual restaurant created the “normal” situation of diners eating first and then paying. I’m sure the restaurant reaching into its bottomless pockets and covering the loss from these meals sounds very appealing, but well over half of restaurants fail in their first year and when they do, bye bye jobs for everyone on staff. It’s a tough business.

What do you think management is for? It’s their job to oversee the actual operation of the place.
The waitstaff has enough to do without being loss prevention and yet not even allowed to stop someone from leaving.

[MandaJo]

@AnaMen

You’d be orphaned because your mom overestimated the value of $12. The consequence of her not getting the customer to pay is that she’d pay out of pocket, NOT that she’d lose her job.

I am quite sure they can’t actually “charge” a waitress for the meal. What they can do is fire her if she has a dine-and-dash, and then offer to let her “make it up” and keep her job. But they can’t just send her a bill for charge she didn’t incur. So it is very much her job at stake.

And your arguments don’t address the meat of mine, which that this is a rule that requires wait staff to literally risk their lives for the price of a meal.

[Guinastasia]

I find it absolutely disgusting, and if I found out a restaurant had this policy, I wouldn’t eat there. I can’t believe it’s legal.

[John_Bredin]

@AnaMen

Don’t put words in my mouth. I did not ever say that they make more than they “deserve.”

The issue is not whether the employee is dishonest, fraudulent, or incompetent. A restaurant cannot remain open if it is not profitable. If no one is motivated to keep close watch on diners who have not paid, how will the restaurant manage to absorb the loss? No individual restaurant created the “normal” situation of diners eating first and then paying. I’m sure the restaurant reaching into its bottomless pockets and covering the loss from these meals sounds very appealing, but well over half of restaurants fail in their first year and when they do, bye bye jobs for everyone on staff. It’s a tough business.

The restaurant owner(s) undertook risk in exchange for potential reward. In exchange for the profits (if any) of their enterprise, they may choose to accept lower or even no personal salary/wages. Employees opt to forgo that reward in exchange for being paid regularly for their work. That’s what being an employee is; if I work two weeks at my agreed salary, I get paid at the end of those two weeks for two weeks’ work (less taxes, insurance, etc.) regardless of whether my employer’s books are in the black or the red.

IMHO, putting the onus of dine&dash on an honest and non-negligent employee is the worst of both worlds, loss-sharing without profit-sharing. :dubious: