The practice is an example of why a completely free market isn’t a good idea. Laws restraining the ability of employers to demand such practices make sense, because if the inequality of bargaining-power that typically exists in this situation.
I didn’t edit a damn word you said. I quoted you directly. And again, it’s not an opinion you’re expressing, it’s a statement of fact, of which you have not supported with any evidence.
I can’t go around saying “The earth is actually the 7th planet from the sun” and then couch it with “THAT’S MY OPINION.”
You think if a clerk sees a “customer” stuff some merchandise down their pants and walk out the door they are told to just ignore it? No.
If you walk into the break room, and a coworker is raping another, I don’t think policy states you should tiptoe out and get back to work.
I don’t mean wait staff are supposed to get into physical confrontations with dashers.
They are supposed to notice what’s happening and at least notify a manager. They should confront the people if they have not yet left the restaurant and “remind” them that they seem to have “forgotten” to pay. Each individual restaurant has its own specific policy, I’m sure.
“Don’t prevent a crime in progress” refers to things like armed robbery.
Shouldn’t it? Why not?
Because it’s extortion.
That depends on the circumstance.
The idea that an employer must eat the cost of every act of stupidity by an employee and can only fire the employee as a disciplinary measure is not beneficial to either party.
What if you are an otherwise-profitable employee, but one day think it would be great fun to photocopy your butt. The machine breaks under your weight.
The employer offers to not fire you if you pay for the replacement machine.
Is that really extortion?
I have a lot of questions about this issue that haven’t been addressed in 3 pages of people arguing:
1.) Why can’t the restaurant owner just write off the walkout’s check as a loss on his taxes? Why even bother to charge the server when he’ll get reimbursed by the IRS? Isn’t this basically the same as companies writing off stolen or destroyed merchandise? The restaurantier could state to servers that walkouts are cause for discipline, and have his own policy (like 3 strikes and you’re out, or whatever). If there was a walkout, the server would be to notify management immediately. This way management is tracking unpaid tabs so they can prove to the IRS how much shrinkage they had.
2.) I would like to know specific policies different restaurants have on this issue; dopers who are/know servers, the chain and state the restaurant is part of.
3.) I would also like to know policies in other countries regarding this issue. Its been established that few if any restaurants outside of the US have servers relying primarily on tips- people seldom tip at restaurants outside of the US and I assume the servers are paid a reasonable wage for their services.
I feel like for a restaurant to get away with docking the pay of servers because of skipped checks, they’d have to have some ironclad legal mumbo jumbo in their employee contract. Otherwise, what’s stopping the bilked employee from suing his employer for lost wages?
Its BS like this that make me glad my job’s policy puts the safety of the Bus Driver above above making sure they paid the fare. Our official policy is to state the fare, if they sneak in/can’t pay the full amount, its our discretion on whether we want to let it go or call a supervisor. People refusing to pay/sneaking on does not affect our paycheck and neither our employer nor our union wants to deal with the potential backlash or hazards of confronting people about coughing up a couple of bucks.
The fact that you seem to think that this situation is somehow analogous to restaurant walkouts is rather illuminating.
Your question suggests a misunderstanding about what it means to write something off on taxes.
Even if the restaurant owner can do that, a loss of income that can be “written off” on tax is still a loss for the restaurant. The owner doesn’t get to claim the amount of the meal back from the government; he or she just gets to reduce the restaurant’s earnings by the amount lost. The restaurant still loses money.
Most stores have security employees whose job is to handle situations like this. Management in these stores understand that theft is the store’s problem that needs to be dealt with not something that can be shifted on to its employees and then ignored.
My mistake, I did have a misunderstanding. Now I feel embarassed.
I think no such thing.
This was a response to the statement “it should not be possible to go to work and lose money” and that employers fining employees is “extortion.”
Under some circumstances, it clearly should: paying for something you broke through stupidity. That does not mean walkouts are one of them, but it acknowledges that such a category (things an employee ought to pay for) does exist.
No. If you break something “in stupidity”, you should either be fired, or get some other non-financial punishment. Or simply be forgiven, since everyone drops things, bumps tables, or whatever occasionally.
What shouldn’t be legal is taking their money. As long as they’re employed, the owner should provide them 100% of their owed wages.
This is the entire point of entrepreneurship and employment: The business owner takes risks, but also reaps all the profits, and can work and lead as they see fit. The employee loses out on profits and self-determination, but gains a steady and predictable paycheck in the bargain. If employees are going to assume the risks of ownership, they better get partial ownership and a share of the profits too.
If a waiter is forced to pay for walkouts such that it brings their pay for that day below minimum wage, I believe the employer should be fined and punished for underpaying their staff.
For one thing, that’s not at all analogous because sitting on the photocopier is not something you do in the course of your work. It’s something you are doing on your break, not as an employee.
Even then, I don’t think they should be able to say “Pay money or lose your job”. It’s just too open to abuse.
Go back to my example: do you think you should be able to “buy off” write-ups in your personal file?
No, it isn’t something you are SUPPOSED to be doing in the course of your work. Tha fact that you are goofing off does not automatically make it a break.
When the employer says “pay money to cover the cost of the thing you broke or lose your job,” who is being abused?
Of course you should not be able to “buy off” write-ups in your file. The idea that you can be given the option to pay for damage you have done in lieu of being written up in the first place is perfectly reasonable. Had you used better judgment and not tried to photocopy your butt, there would be no issue. Why would you NOT want to pay for damage you inflicted from your poor choice?
I know “employee good/employer bad” is an appealing way of thinking to some, but try to have some perspective.
What are these “nonfinancial punishments” you have in mind?
Whatever the employer does for literally every other employee screw up.
If you’re late to work, do they take your money? If you drop a dish, do they take your money? If you screw up an order, do they take your money? No. Depending on the severity, you get a written warning, a good talking to, lose some privileges, or are fired.
The only time you should be allowed to take money from your employees is if a judge orders it. Yeah, if an employee vandalizes your establishment, or punches the boss, or steals from the register, you press charges and/or sue them. Until you get a judge involved, you don’t take their money. The best you can do short of court, is fire them and refuse to pay them any longer. You don’t go back and take money they’ve already earned.
Nobody expects the waiter or waitress to confront a dine and dasher.
This is basically an economics problem. The restaurant has razor thin margins. It has to pay the rent, the utilities, the cook staff and manager’s salary, and part of the waitstaff’s salary.
The waitstaff basically work on commission; it’s there duty to collect orders and ensure payment. If their good service attracts customers, they directly benefit from increased tips. They inherently share in financial the risk of operating the restaurant (unlike in most jobs). This is no different than taking up a door-to-door sales job.
Unfortunately, disgruntled waitstaff are common enough, that strict penalties must be used to ensure they don’t skim off the customers. The manager can’t be watching every waiter equally at all times. If the waiters skim, they risk being fired, but collect a few extra bucks. If they are tricky, they could get away with this several times, before being caught.
They could cost the restaurant a few hundred dollars before being fired, and this money is basically unrecoverable. The owner could go to court, but that costs time and money, and the perpetrator likely spent it already to avoid giving it back. Meanwhile, the restaurants likely just breaks even, and could go out of business altogether from repeated losses to theft.
Having to pay the bill discourages skimming or giving free meals to friends. Sharing the cost of a dine-and-ditcher among all the employees insures the honest ones a smaller loss, and provides incentive to other employees to report skimming and other abuses. People can only reliably be predicted to work in their best interest, and financial interests are among the easiest to predict. This is especially necessary in large chains, where the employees likely think it is nothing but a faceless corporation, where stealing from it hurts no one. If everyone acted this way, even the large chain would fold.
It boils down to waitsaff being an inherently financially risky occupation. If a self employed individual were to lose money, he’d have only himself to blame. If a door-to-door salesman were to lose money, nobody would blame his suppliers; it is simply an occupational risk. Waitstaff should be viewed in a similar manner; they contribute and share directly in the success or failure of the business. If this is unacceptable, they should find alternative employment.
But Perkins needs waitstaff. Should they chase away the waitstaff they do have by making them pay for the checks of walkouts? That doesn’t seem like a good business practice to chase away everyone but people who can’t find any other job in town and are willing to put up with your shit. I mean, its Perkins, but Grandma needs somewhere to go after church (she doesn’t generally dine and dash) and people need somewhere to get pie after bar close (which I suspect is the bigger potential liability - although Grandma is getting pretty forgetful).
Then how can the waitstaff be expected to keep track of a larger number of diners(per waiter) if the manager can’t keep track of a few waiters.
The only place I ever see a management presence is in fast food places.
It’s vanishingly rare to see a manager on the floor anywhere else unless you ask to see them.