Maybe not exactly, but you did justify the practice of charging them for customer theft by arguing that they make more than people in other sectors of the economy with similar skills.
It is a stupid argument, because it connects two things that are not related. What a waiter earns, in wages and tips, is irrelevant to whether it is fair for an employer to charge a waiter for dine-and-dash incidents.
If a server were letting their friends eat free, coworkers may look the other way if there is no risk to them. If everybody (waitstaff) takes a hit on a walk out the coworkers won’t put up with it.
If that’s the crux of the argument, it’s a very weak argument. If the servers can afford to pay for the losses due to theft, why can’t the owner of the restaurant pay for them? Or why not the manager? They’re both making more money than the servers are. And they both have more control over how the restaurant is run - including its security.
As others have noted, this policy is not based on who can best afford to pay or who is most responsible. It’s based on who has the least power and can least resist having the cost dumped on them.
I had this happen once years ago when I was working at a bar/restaurant with outdoor tables.
There was fairly young cute girl who had a dinner for one overlooking the bay. We made small talk, she asked about a few things to do in the city and I told her, she ordered bourbon salmon and a couple beers. Got the check for her, etc. Went inside to get a round of drinks for another table and then came back and got the billfold. She had shorted the bill by some strange amount.
I actually would have rated her in the top 10% of people I’ve ever served in terms of friendliness and just genuine rapport. I saw her walking briskly away, and accelerate as she turned and saw me. I could have easily caught up to her, but I said, whatever… and made up the difference out of my pocket.
I figured that maybe she needed the money more than me or was some sort of hippie who paid ‘what she thought it was worth.’ Who knows?
Another server had an instance where the whole bill was stolen by someone who was obviously living on the streets or close to it. That was eaten by the restaurant. And then there was another time when someone dashed on an outside table and the waiter was forced to eat it because of his ‘experience.’
It’s clearly wage theft, but very often any place that sells alcohol is a revolving door for service personnel. So when given the choice of ‘cover it or you’re fired’ most servers do the former.
The one time this happened to me, I didn’t have to pay for it, but it was not a chain restaurant.
So, if a storeowner sets up his store so lots of valuable stuff is by the door, and only hires one clerk, should the clerk be fined if someone makes off with merchandise?
You speak of breakage. Do warehouse workers get money taken if merchandise breaks in the normal course of moving it? (When I did that job the merchandise was unbreakable, so it never came up.) Do you think management wins if all the workers move slowly enough to reduce breakage?
I can think lots of ways of setting things up to reduce theft, but which would increase overhead. That’s a management level tradeoff. You want them to save money on security by increasing costs to workers. I wouldn’t patronize such a place.
That is a ridiculous comparison and has nothing to do with this.
Are they cheap scammers or innocent employees? You seem confused.
Yes, management does this by delegating. In this case, they have delegated this task to servers. Who else would know whether/when someone has paid or not?
Absurd. They are risking their jobs, in that case, not their lives. Even if they are not offered the opportunity to pay for the meal themselves, they are still risking their jobs. In one scenario, they can pay the $12 or be fired. In the other, they are fired and not allowed to make up the $12. How is that better? How is it less risky? How is it more fair?
The floor manager or loss prevention agent.
The servers have enough to do. They shouldn’t have to cover for incompetent or lay management.
And it’s the cashier who knows who paid or not.
The higher the sales, the higher the tips. It’s actually better than profit-sharing, because the waiter’s take-home depends on the gross sales, regardless of profit.
Look, you don’t fine employees because they don’t show up on time, or because they didn’t iron their uniform properly, or because they didn’t wrap enough silverware during a slow time. You “counsel” them, you write them up, you eventually fire them. Why should this area of employment be different? I think the answer is two-fold: writing people up/terminating them requires actually determining which walk-outs were due to server incompetence and which were not, and, more to the point, the restaurant doesn’t care as long as they get their money from someone. As for why they get away with it, I think it’s tradition and lack of leverage on the part of the employees. Which sucks and should change.
They might be making more than the servers and they might not. A lot of people decline management promotions because they don’t want to lose out on tips, and many owners are making nothing while their restaurants bleed money until they close up for good. Nine out of ten restaurants in my town fail in their first year.
Servers covering the cost of people skipping out on checks has been standard practice in the US for around a billion years. It’s weird that people are suddenly freaking out about it.
I think the policy should be like any other theft in any other industry: you don’t ask service personal to directly confront criminals, period. Cashiers are FIRED if they don’t comply with a robber’s orders. Store clerks are FIRED if they confront shoplifters directly. Why on earth are servers fired or fined if they DON’T throw themselves in the pathway of a criminal and face them down?
Doesn’t make it right.
Spousal abuse and drunk driving was winked at and joked about for years.
Cashier? Loss prevention agent?
This doesn’t seem to be how most restaurants work.
Making sure the customers don’t leave without paying is traditionally part of the job of a server. They don’t have “enough to do” if you leave this part out, because it’s actually a really important part of the job… If they fail, the entire enterprise of taking the order, cooking the meal, serving the meal, refilling the drinks, washing the dishes, etc., was for nothing.
Cashiers are fired if their drawers are short. Many prefer to make up the shortfall out of pocket, because they’d rather keep their jobs.
A server has similarly agreed to take responsibility for collecting payment for the food they have served. Whose job should that be do you suppose?
Then maybe it should. If there’s enough of these incidents that it’s affecting the bottom line, then the salary for two more people would more than pay for themselves.
It’s time for the owner (hail the holy job-creator!) to take responsibility for how the restaurant is run.
His/her investment, his/her risk.
Any cashier job I ever had, that was not the case: drawer was under or over by a certain amount more often than a certain number of times, and you were fired. Which is how it should be: if you are paying out the wrong change all day on a regular basis you ought to be fired; you can’t make that right by evening out the drawer at the end of the day.
What’s wrong is skipping out on your check. The system invites abuse in a sense, but that is more the fault of tradition than anything else, and abuse is pretty rare considering.