You know why this is really bugging me… It’s because this situation is an exact parallel to the one where my parents got ripped off.
You can keep the change vs. You can keep whats in the garage
An extra $20 was in the envelope vs an AC unit was in the garage
Call back to get the $20 or AC unit that wasn’t supposed to be part of the deal and are told to fuck off, it’s mine now.
I’ll apologize to everyone I’ve called names, it’s just feeling a bit too personal at the moment. I had to watch my parents talk about it with downcast, embarassed looks on their faces, and I wish I could give those jerks a big poke in the nose.
Apology accepted, Cheesesteak. I’ve already described why I consider the situations dissimilar, and if the cleaners in your example lied about the AC, why, they’re being jerks. If they had an opportunity to ask your folks about the AC and didn’t do so, they were being jerks. I think both of those facets don’t have similarities to the waiter situation.
Sorry I came into this late (no, I wasn’t doing a vanity search).
I see some people in this thread saying Jeff is taking advantage. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? It was the customer’s obligation to make sure the bills weren’t stuck together when paying. First he was being cheap by trying to leave little more than 10%, now he’s being an ass for demanding restitution. While he might not be back in town for a while, someone he knows might be so I say he should be given something to keep him happy. Not necessarily the $20, though; maybe if he was nicer about it…
Because the customer in this case said “keep the change”, right? Is that what you’ve been arguing? That whatever amount was in the book when he handed it over is automatically the servers because he uttered the “keep the change” bit?
And you wonder why I’ve been thinking you guys are looking at this legally instead of ethically?
Because looking at it ethically, it seems to me you have to take into account what the customer meant when he said “keep the change”. And it’s pretty obvious from his coming back to the restaurant and his seemingly legitimate explanation of what happened, that he never intended to leave that much. He only meant to leave twenty, for the whole deal.
By holding him to his “keep the change” line, and the unintended forty bucks, you’ve, in a sense, held him responsible for an agreement he never made. He only intended and was willing to agree to leaving twenty bucks.
I’m sorry, but I don’t see how there’s so many distinctions in there. There isn’t.
Daniel, I’ve addressed only Jeff’s personal integrity, not the customer’s.
If the customer is lacking in courtesy and kindness, that still doesn’t let Jeff off the hook for living up to high standards of personal integrity.
I can see why Jeff might originally think that the tip was genuine. I understand that there was nothing he could do to double check to see if it was a mistake since the man left. It doesn’t matter to me if the customer was cheap, absentminded, impoverished, or uncoordinated. I agree that the money is legally Jeff’s. That has nothing to do with what actions will best serve Jeff in the long run.
The reason that I brought up kharma is that some might misunderstand that I was saying that Jeff should give it back because “what goes 'round comes round” or “the good we do comes back to us.” That’s not my point.
grem, you’re right, they do happen, but they ARE the exception rather than the rule. I should take a deep breath or two before posting when I get agitated.
Geez, lots of anger getting tossed around for $20 that don’t belong to anyone in this thread.
One time I received a $15 tip on a $5 meal. Meal is a misnomer. It was a drink. I brought it to him. That’s about all I did. End of the meal he gave me a 20 and said to keep it. He was trying to impress his boss. Considering his boss only tipped 20% and this guy just tipped 300%, I think he failed horribly at it, but who am I to argue?
Along the lines of hypotheticals, let’s take a look at what I just presented. Say the guy comes back to me three hours (or two days later) and says “Wow, that was really stupid of me tipping 300%. Giving you that was obviously a mistake. I want it back.” What now?
A reasonable time is all that I assume. And in the case of Jeff and the customer dude, a reasonable time would have been until the restaurant closed that night. Anything beyond that is unreasonable.
No, we’re wondering why you’re still arguing this point, since any number of people posting to this thread have said that, ultimately, if the customer pushes the envelope on this situation, Jeff should return the money. From a personal integrity standpoint, it would be the right thing to do.
However, we’re also arguing that Jeff should never have been put in this situation in the first place. And the fault for that lies squarely on the shoulders of the idiot customer, and (to a lesser extent) on the manager of the restaurant.
If Jeff already spent the money on something he wouldn’t have done otherwise, then he is not morally obligated to return an equivalent amount. If he didn’t spend any money he wouldn’t have spent, then morally the right thing to do would be to return the money.
The manager should not have set up Jeff to get confronted by the customer, without knowing whether Jeff still had the money or not. Of everyone in the story, the manager comes off the worst. This is the type of problem he should solve - but instead of solving it, he actually made it worse and set up an employee.
The customer may have left only an 11% tip because of bad service. We don’t know. I don’t think there is any serious argument that he actually intended to leave an over 100% tip, and only afterwards felt he made a mistake. It is clear it was an accident. I would just take it as a lesson learned, but if this guy really needs the money I can see asking for it - although he should have accepted full responsibility for his mistake.
Actually, Sauron, I disagree that the waiter should return the money, unless his boss forces him to do so. For me, personal integrity involves holding to my sense of ethics, and additionally treating other folks with the respect and decency they deserve. I disagree with Zoe that everyone deserves equal amounts of respect and decency, however: while I might feel guilty about denying the twenty bucks to a schmoe who had tipped me reasonably and came back grovelling and asking politely for the money, I wouldn’t feel guilty at all about denying it to a guy who tried to stiff me and who came back demanding something that wasn’t ethically or legally his.
The guy who comes to me for a favor will find me cutting him some slack. The guy that comes to me ready to fight is going to get a fight.
Whether the waiter cuts him slack or not, the waiter is acting ethically. Zoe’s sense of personal integrity doesn’t apply to the waiter; only his own sense applies, and it’s perfectly reasonable for the waiter’s sense not to be insulted by not cutting slack.
Heck, some people would fel their personal self-respect violated if they DID give the money back – they’d feel like they’d let themselves be taken for a sucker.
I don’t understand your stance on this. Based on what we’ve been told thus far, Jeff still doesn’t know the customer has asked for money back. Jeff won’t know this until tonight, when roughly 48 hours have passed. Going by your logic, Jeff has no reason to return the money, because enough time has passed before he’ll be made aware of the problem.
My apologies on misstating your position, DanielWithrow.
