rich

I really don't believe many people will go above and beyond a listed 20% service charge - especially when they see the actual dollar amount listed on the bill. If Keller were to absorb the "charge" and a monetary service charge isn't seen (but the percentage is indicated on the menu), then I think there's better chance for an addtional gratuity.

Exactly Steve, but I don't believe Keller's lastest effort achieves that goal nor is it the first step in attaining such a goal. In fact, if it's simply a re-tooling of the Laundry's policy, then he isn't breaking new ground at all, merely bringing it east. As I stated in a post much earlier in this thread, let Keller absorb a "service charge" within Per Se's price structure and allow patrons to leave an additional tip (if any) according to the experience. And those tips, gratuities (whatever the name) should be retained by the people that earn them. At least that gives the wait staff an incentive. Maybe this is just a New York or an older generation thing, but in my opinion, incentives still work. PS - I noticed someone said the Laundry's service charge is 18%. Any reason why Keller went to 20% here?

Your last sentence rather struck a nerve. I do leave 20% all the time unless service has been totally obnoxious or somehow totally outstanding (neither of these extremes has happened in my recent memory, though I do once remember leaving absolutely nothing to a totally obnoxious server many years ago and also remember another time leaving a $100. bill on the table once on Christmas Eve "just because". . .) Why 20 rather than 15? I am old enough to remember the 15. Yes, I think its a yuppie thing. Or something that has to do with culture, society and guilt. . .(misplaced guilt, for some servers likely have more money in their pocket than I do, especially if they work at Per Se. . . but nonetheless, something to do with that sort of feeling.) One feels like. . ."If I've got enough money to eat here, then I've got enough money to tip well, too". Not always TRUE, but definitely part of the experience. . . I am definitely edging towards the view that tipping has more to do with one's personality, background, and/or mood than the actual realities of the service experience. ← Maybe that's the key! The Yuppie crowd leaves tips because of the aforementioned and my crowd (50's) leaves tips based on the service. Where's that study when I need one????

Excellent point and he can keep his wait staff as virtual independent contractors and not worry about payroll taxes etc. Plus he's now added the chefs and other kitchen staff to the mix - I'm sure the wait staff will be enamored. But you're right, as always, the consumers ultimately pay the freight. I hope the chef, sous chefs and line cooks don't want a raise soon - then it will be a mandatory 25%. Do you think the next step will be to change the name from Per Se to Keller's Commune?

Just thought this was important to add after re-reading some of the posts. I made some of my best tips when the kitchen made an error. I made sure I went out of my way to correct it and made the customer feel that she/he was getting special attention because of that error. I thought I was being a good waiter and then getting rewarded for such, but unfortunately, no study or Mr. Lynn ever questioned me, so I guess it didn't happen. Just anecdotal probably. Similar to a tree falling in the woods making no sound because no one was there to hear it.

In all the discussions, that was mentioned infrequently. I posted something about it much earlier. I've left less than 15% one time in my life - for a waitress (who was very pretty) who was rude, arrogant and simply made the experience hateful. But, I must emphasize, it had nothing to do with the quality of the food (which, actually was very good). Saying that, I will always throw in another $5, 10, 20 (whatever is appropriate based on the check amount) when someone goes out of their way to help make the dining experience more pleasurable and fun. After all, isn't eating out about having fun? How often does that happen? Probably one in every three/four.

No problem with that, then have it built-in to the cost. Let the restaurant owner pay the waitstaff as "real employees" (as he/she should) and allow the staff to keep whatever dollars they can make by virtue of their own talents. Or add 15% as a service charge and use the Bern's formula of stating a gratuity is a reward for fine service - and that additional portion (if any) should be kept by the individual wait person.

That's because no one in their right mind would ever tip 18% to the guy that just wheels up the food and drops most of it on the elevator floor.

Except for it being mandatory, the same system (15% must) I had the restaurant implement in the late 60's. The 15% was pooled and you kept the rest of what YOU earned by being a good waiter. Why this concept is so hard for people to comprehend is confusing. Thank you Boris.

Your example sites a situation that has nothing to do with poor service. If a piece of meat is overcooked, that's not the waiter's fault and he should not be penalized for such. Second, you make the quantum leap that the manager will comp the diner a free meal next time - huge leap of faith. What about the waiter who is lazy? Fails to comply with a request? Forgets to bring over the pepper mill? Neglects to place your appetizer order? Disappears when you want your check? And asks if you want change back after he takes the money for the check? That's how a waiter should be judged, not whether the meat is burned.

I'm sure his credentials are impeccable and his studies noteworthy. What I doubt is the veracity of the information provided to him by wait staff and customers. More and more studies that involve people's political opinions, social behavior, morals, voting records and, yes, spending habits are being questioned because people have become more wary of "media-type groups and surveys." We are becoming a more private society every day - maybe the realities of our fragility have taken a toll. It's also possible tipping is different in Austin than in NYC.

Lots of people believe their personal experience is more accurate than scientifically conducted studies. They're usually wrong. In addition, any serious study makes its methodology public and, while there may be some built in biases, good studies attempt to control for those biases and are in any event a lot less biased than anecdotal reports from individuals. I also would not, in a study of consumer tipping behavior, care very much about what waiters think. I would care about what consumers think. A waiter may assume he get more money because he gives great service; in reality it may just be because he's handsome. And they, unlike waiters, have little incentive to lie about cash matters. Have a look at Michael Lynn's web page. He's the foremost authority on consumer tipping behavior, and has done dozens of studies and meta-studies. There's a ton of interesting information assembled on his pages. There's also a good distillation of his work in a Cornell Chronicle story: ← To answer the first part, I don't believe my experiences were observed in a vacuum - if they were it was a very large vacuum. If I am wrong about good service equaling better tips, then the ten years I worked as a waiter to make some extra money while going to school were a complete waste. I always made more money and I guess I should have just been lazy - I would have made the same and not worked nearly as hard. Secondly, I'm assuming studies would include information from waiters and the public. If they chose one or the other, the study would have no validity at all. When you say a waiter/waitress may have gotten a good tip because they were good looking and not because they provided good service, that's seems a bit over the top. Yes I'm sure there are people who would do this, but it's rare (unless as you said in an earlier post that the promise of sex was suggested) and certainly wouldn't be significant over time. And I think the public would lie about cash matters as much as the waiters. When being interviewed by someone about tipping, you would never want to come across as petty or cheap - or want people to know something about you that is considered private (just as waiters would never admit to providing poor service). That's simple human nature. Notice no one here admits to giving 10%, but we all say we give 15-20% or more. The same can be said for political exit polls, people say things that make them appear better to the eyes of the interviewer - the main reason why networks don't predict election outcomes as quickly as they once did. I totally agree with Lynn's second and third conclusions. The second because part of being a good waiter is making the customers feel liked, respected and appreciated (and I did some of those things as a waiter). The third because it's the reason why you can't compare France and the United States with respect to tipping. I totally disagree with one. It makes no sense. Think of it. If you went into a restaurant and had truly poor service by someone who had no incentive to provide better, would you tip 20%? I know I wouldn't. And I can say from MY ANCEDOTAL EXPERIENCE of ten years, that most customers don't either. I think this suggests that the surveyed people didn't want to come across poorly for whatever reason - probably just an ego thing. Believe the studies if you will. I choose to accept reality.

Don't be silly. In France, where service is included, it's not uncommon to leave a few coins on the bar or 5% at a restauraurant. Some people leave 10% at a good restaurant and that's in addition to the included service. Tips are always in cash, never added to the credit card amount. My guess is that a minimum service charge will not decrease the take for waiters in the long run. Rich, you refer several times to your experience and in a way that implies it's more extensive, or at least more reliable than the independent studies. Could you explain why? I find the studies reasonably reliable. ← Believe me Bux, if I'm being silly, you'll be the first to know - I promise. I'll even e-mail you privately if that would help your cognitive abilities. What they do in France has absolutely no relation to what will occur here. I think that's clearly evident from the political and socio-economic climate in both countries. While there may be some people who will throw a few dollars extra into the pot, I doubt many will, especially at 20% of the total bill including wine. At Per Se's prices, it would be rare that more than a few would leave more. I've always found personal experience to be more reliable than studies. For one, the methodology (which may be flawed) is unknown except to the study's sponsors. Secondly, there are always built-in prejudices with studies - the same as with political polls. Finally, when studies are done where cash is involved they are notoriously inaccurate. Anyone who has taken Economics 101 understands that. People are not completely "up-front" when speaking about cash. And cash is left for tips - at least occasionally. When I worked as a waiter, I witnessed certain people making substantially more than others and it wasn't for one night or one week - it was over several years. Obviously, the study or studies never included the restaurants where I worked. So to answer you're opening query - no I wasn't being silly, just factual. I hope this helps in solving your dilemma.

You're right - probably the best way. I guess it comes to this. Keller has the right to do whatever he wants. The staff at Per Se can stay or find new positions. Diners have the right to stay home and not pay the 20%. We all make are own choices. I am going to continue to disagree with his decision from a business point of view, but saying that, I will admit it won't affect his business at all. Diners will continue to fight for reservations and gladly fork over 30 or 40% if that's what it takes. As long as Per Se and Keller remain hot, the sky's the limit.

To answer you first question. Yes it appears the study is wrong based on ten years of experience. Do it again suggests two things - the control was flawed, or the study is obsolete. I think a study of restaurant tipping is difficult at best anyway, because where do you find the truth? Sure, the credit card tips are obvious, but what about the cash tips? Very difficult to get an accurate picture. The problem with the study could be in amount vs. percentage. High end restaurant wait staff are going to make more money regardless of their ability. But percentage wise (of the total bill), that may not be the case. So a mediocre waiter in a top tier restaurant (with higher prices) will make more money than an excellent waiter in a mid-priced restaurant. My argument is based on percentage, not total income.

Isn't that what I said two pages back? A good waiter gives exceptional service and gets better tips. Personally, I won't go below the 15% line unless it was truly bad service. But I will go to 25% for exceptional service (as I did at Per Se). But now it will never cost me more than 20% at Per Se. Who loses?

Yes, they probably do and now that fifty gets pooled. Not going to make for a happy captain.

Conspiracy? We are taking what I write to new levels today. I'm certainly glad no one on this board is a hard news journalist - the Enquirer would be calling. I think I was comparing (and making an analogy to Per Se) two systems of government and the psychological effects they can have or not have on the people who live under them. I never said people wouldn't be fired for incompetence, but why should it get to that point? In my mind, incentives give people pride in what they do because they feel appreciated.

So you're saying that, because your personal experiences and opinions do not accord with the studies, the studies are wrong and they should do more until they do agree with your personal experiences and opinions? That's not how science works. What the studies seem to say is that, if you figure out the average tip percentage for each waiter over the course of some reasonably lengthy period of time (say, a year), the percentages are very similar to within a few percentage points. This is not to say that some waiters don't make much more money than others, but it is to say that this disparity reflects the size of the checks rather than a meaningful difference in percentage tipped. I don't think I said that. I said they should do new studies because ten years of experience says this is not the case. I don't think they should do the studies until it agrees with my experiences, just do it again and get it right - whatever right is! I don't know where you read studies should be conducted until they agreed with me.

Even within that realm, there will be people who perform better than others, so eliminate the tipping by building the 20% into the menu and wine list and base everyone's hourly rate on performance. At least that gives people some incentive and doesn't ruffle the feathers of a number of diners. But at the same time Keller should realize that Per Se isn't Disney World, where eveyone wears the same name tag and somehow manages the same smile that features 75 gleaming-white teeth (I think they're all relatives of Mary Tyler Moore). Consumers have different needs. Diversity is one the characteristics we cherish most. I don't want the same "cookie cutter" service time after time, day after day. The basics should be the same (putting water, bread, drinks etc on the table), but the system should allow for the staff person's individual talents to shine and their personality to interact with the personality of the customer.

I can only go by experience working as a waiter, since I never read the tip studies you and Steve did. And in the ten years, my experience showed the best waiters received the better tips. If the studies show otherwise, it's time to conduct new studies. A bad waiter at a "good" table will get less of a tip (percentage wise) than a good waiter at a "bad" table. I've experienced it, but never wrote a study. The tip system for restaurant wait staff came into being because it was a way for the owner to subsidize payroll. It's a way for an owner to spend less on salary and have the customer determine a huge portion of the person's salary. It also cut down expenses for accountants, payroll taxes and benefits. And yes you do determine the salary at department stores and other shops. A great number of retail people are paid a sales commission and you're more likely to buy something from a competent sales person than an incompetent one. The same holds true for car sales, real estate sales and stock broker sales. When you think of it, customers determine the salaries for a significant number of professions. You may not control the chef's salary, but if people stop eating at a restaurant, the consumer has the final say. Ulimately, as you say, the restaurant should be responsible for wait staff payroll. No problem with that at all. Eliminate tipping altogether, build the 20% into the bill and then no one has a problem. That's better than adding a 20% service charge because it won't offend anyone and all staff will be paid a straight salary (and not necessarily the same). NB - Bern's Steakhouse in Tampa, FL puts a 12% charge on the check "...in lieu of salary.." and then the menu goes on to state that tipping is at the discretion of the diner and should be considered a reward for fine service. Maybe the best of all worlds - everyone gets 12%, and the better workers get more based on performance.

But as you say Steve, at your law firm, some associates made partner. Others (I assume) didn't. That was the incentive to perform better. I'm not using the term equal sharing of the pool - Keller did. Yes, I agree there are better shifts, extra hours etc., but in the end all wait staff will probably end up with the same pay (more or less). But let's face it in the restaurant business, a very large percentage of a wait person's salary is based on tips. And we don't know how this will play out. In Keller's Nirvana, he may decide to equally share the pool on a weekly or monthly basis, thus eliminating the better days, shifts etc., just for the sake of creating his "community of one."

This whole concept of control could be a "slippery slope" with the end result being the loss of individualism and choice, not only with the staff but with the consumer. At the far end of such an example a restaurant could just initiate a $1,000 per person charge and serve one meal with wine pairings - no tipping, no food choices, no wine choices - just what the visionary chooses to serve on a particular evening. Granted, an extreme example but certainly within the realm of possibility. Keller can do anything he wants because it's his restaurant. Business-wise I don't think a mandatory 20% charge is wise in this country and most especially in NYC - we have the deserved reputation as being a people of choice. The "pooling concept" has been tried in several shapes and forms over the years and in many industries and doesn't work. When you give everyone the same wage, regardless of performance, it eventually leads to morale decline - just the opposite of what Keller says he's is trying to accomplish. He may be a food guru, but obviously history isn't his strong suit. PS - There are "teams" at Per Se, but one wait staff person has charge of a particular table, so service can and does vary from table to table. And I think it's a very good thing for there to be a wait person of choice in a restaurant. It gives other staff members something to strive for, especially when it's clear that person makes more in tips because of her/his skill, pride and determination.

But even with teamwork, some individuals are just better at a job than others. And in my opinion those individuals should be compensated accordingly. When that "15% must" system was put in place, some waiters made significantly more than others - and that wasn't by accident.

It's not the service charge that's communist, it's the pooling concept that is. The financial basis of communism is equality of wages, regardless of the competency level of said individual.