Edit History

On ‎7‎/‎16‎/‎2014 at 9:10 PM, Edward J said:

 

 

Oh dear, I was afraid of that.

 

It's not servers who make the hospitality industry go round and round.

 

It's the customers.

 

No customers, no industry.  Same as every other industry.

 

And the customers don't like forking out 20% in tips or even higher, nor do they like the fact that someone lobbied to get servers paid a "tipping wage".

 

First thing I want to reiterate is that I'm not saying I am personally opposed to, or in favor of, any changes in the tipping system.  Honestly, I don't really care.  Neither I nor any of my family is currently working as a server although, in the past, we all have.  And I'm a generous tipper, so if the initial cost of the restaurant food goes up, that won't affect me.  But the bottom line for me is that I believe it's up to the servers themselves to make that determination.  And not up to me to decide, no matter how compassionate and wonderful and moral and caring and empathetic and sensitive a person I believe myself to be.

 

But, like many of us, I do have an opinion.  And I find these posts that seem to be insulting the general dining public (including me) as being too greedy and selfish to want servers to earn a living wage slightly offensive.

 

So to you I say that I guess I have more faith in the innate compassion of most human beings than you do.  There have been a great many instances throughout history whereby some exploited, downtrodden, dire, desperate group have made their plight known and others rally to the cause to fix things, and things do get better.  It's not hard to find lots of examples throughout the world, including in the US.  I still insist that if the servers were really so miserable as you seem to think with the current situation, and if they were out on the sidewalks striking because those greedy, selfish, customers and greedy, selfish, wealthy restaurant owners refused to do anything to help the poor victimized impoverished and exploited servers, the public would indeed rally 'round and do something, and things would change. 

 

But they're not.  They're not out on the sidewalks in front of the restaurants.  They're not writing opinion letters to all the news outlets.  And just saying, "Oh they can't; they're afraid they'll be fired!" isn't a good reason.  That's always been the case with exploited workers demonstrating and striking to get publicity in order to make their situation known.  That's always how it goes.  That's always the risk.  But, when their plight is dire enough, they take it.

 

So, if their situation is so unfair, why aren't they out in front of restaurants carrying signs and demanding change?

 

I repeat that, although some servers probably don't like the current system, a great many more do like the current system just fine.  And that if they didn't, they would be mounting some sort of huge revolt, and that we would all know about it, and that the general public would support a change.  You indicate that you don't believe that.  You seem to believe that only you are thoughtful, rational, sympathetic and compassionate enough to support a change - in comparison, of course, with the majority of the restaurant-going populace that are just a bunch of jerks.

 

I found this article really interesting.  The restaurant owner is considering going to a higher wage for FOH, but NOT because he thinks they're not earning enough.  His rationale is exactly the opposite.  He says they make too much in comparison to the BOH, and he's planning on taking some of the FOH money away from them and giving it to the BOH.

 

This really flies in the face of those that believe the situation is the other way around.  

 

Excerpt from article:  "Then we have another problem, which is that when a server is getting $10.50 or $11 an hour, plus they’re pulling down between $150 and $300 a night in tips, it’s pretty hard to look a cook in the eye and say we cant afford to pay you $15 or $16 an hour. But of course if we make wages equitable between front and back of house, we will go out of business in a matter of months or weeks. It’s just…we can’t do it. It’s not possible. So everybody’s looking for a solution."

 

And this: "But yeah, it’s a crisis morally. I started out as a line cook. I was a line cook for two decades on and off. You would make $8, $10, $12 an hour. You’d work 10 hours and you’d make $80, $90, $100. And meanwhile the serving staff would walk away with 200 bucks. They were sniffing cocaine and fucking the waitresses and eating steak. We were drinking Budweiser and smoking dirt weed. And that was just the way it was. In those days, you could rent an apartment and you could live on being a cook almost anywhere you were. Unfortunately, that’s not true anymore."

 

Article:  http://www.playboy.com/articles/pok-poks-tipping-experiment-didnt-work-and-chef-andy-ricker-blames-l-a

 

So it turns out that it's the poor cooks on salary that we all really need to worry about.

 

Again, I repeat, I'm not taking a personal stance for or against the changes.  But I don't like being told that, if I'm not manning the barricades for a "livable wage" for the poor exploited servers, it's because I'm a selfish, greedy, soulless, uncompassionate, unmitigated asshole.

 

Or because I'm simply too stupid to really understand the situation. 

 

.

On ‎7‎/‎16‎/‎2014 at 9:10 PM, Edward J said:

 

 

Oh dear, I was afraid of that.

 

It's not servers who make the hospitality industry go round and round.

 

It's the customers.

 

No customers, no industry.  Same as every other industry.

 

And the customers don't like forking out 20% in tips or even higher, nor do they like the fact that someone lobbied to get servers paid a "tipping wage".

 

First thing I want to reiterate is that I'm not saying I am personally opposed to, or in favor of, any changes in the tipping system.  Honestly, I don't really care.  Neither I nor any of my family is currently working as a server although, in the past, we all have.  And I'm a generous tipper, so if the initial cost of the restaurant food goes up, that won't affect me.  But the bottom line for me is that I believe it's up to the servers themselves to make that determination.  And not up to me to decide, no matter how compassionate and wonderful and moral and caring and empathetic and sensitive a person I believe myself to be.

 

But, like many of us, I do have an opinion.  And I find these posts that seem to be insulting the general dining public (including me) as being too greedy and selfish to want servers to earn a living wage slightly offensive.

 

So to you I say that I guess I have more faith in the innate compassion of most human beings than you do.  There have been a great many instances throughout history whereby some exploited, downtrodden, dire, desperate group have made their plight known and others rally to the cause to fix things, and things do get better.  It's not hard to find lots of examples throughout the world, including in the US.  I still insist that if the servers were really so miserable as you seem to think with the current situation, and if they were out on the sidewalks striking because those greedy, selfish, customers and greedy, selfish, wealthy restaurant owners refused to do anything to help the poor victimized impoverished and exploited servers, the public would indeed rally 'round and do something, and things would change. 

 

But they're not.  They're not out on the sidewalks in front of the restaurants.  They're not writing opinion letters to all the news outlets.  And just saying, "Oh they can't; they're afraid they'll be fired!" isn't a good reason.  That's always been the case with exploited workers demonstrating and striking to get publicity in order to make their situation known.  That's always how it goes.  That's always the risk.  But, when their plight is dire enough, they take it.

 

So, if their situation is so unfair, why aren't they out in front of restaurants carrying signs and demanding change?

 

I repeat that, although some servers probably don't like the current system, a great many more do like the current system just fine.  And that if they didn't, they would be mounting some sort of huge revolt, and that we would all know about it, and that the general public would support a change.  You indicate that you don't believe that.  You seem to believe that only you are thoughtful, rational, sympathetic and compassionate enough to support a change - in comparison, of course, with the majority of the restaurant-going populace that are just a bunch of jerks.

 

I found this article really interesting.  The restaurant owner is considering going to a higher wage for FOH, but NOT because he thinks they're not earning enough.  His rationale is exactly the opposite.  He says they make too much in comparison to the BOH, and he's planning on taking some of the FOH money away from them and giving it to the BOH.

 

This really flies in the face of those that believe the situation is the other way around.  

 

Excerpt from article:  "The problem is, once you start raising prices past a certain point, you price yourself out of the market. People just won’t go to your restaurant because you’re too expensive. Then we have another problem, which is that when a server is getting $10.50 or $11 an hour, plus they’re pulling down between $150 and $300 a night in tips, it’s pretty hard to look a cook in the eye and say we cant afford to pay you $15 or $16 an hour. But of course if we make wages equitable between front and back of house, we will go out of business in a matter of months or weeks. It’s just…we can’t do it. It’s not possible. So everybody’s looking for a solution."

 

And this: "But yeah, it’s a crisis morally. I started out as a line cook. I was a line cook for two decades on and off. You would make $8, $10, $12 an hour. You’d work 10 hours and you’d make $80, $90, $100. And meanwhile the serving staff would walk away with 200 bucks. They were sniffing cocaine and fucking the waitresses and eating steak. We were drinking Budweiser and smoking dirt weed. And that was just the way it was. In those days, you could rent an apartment and you could live on being a cook almost anywhere you were. Unfortunately, that’s not true anymore."

 

Article:  http://www.playboy.com/articles/pok-poks-tipping-experiment-didnt-work-and-chef-andy-ricker-blames-l-a

 

So it turns out that it's the poor cooks on salary that we all really need to worry about.

 

Again, I repeat, I'm not taking a personal stance for or against the changes.  But I don't like being told that, if I'm not manning the barricades for a "livable wage" for the poor exploited servers, it's because I'm a selfish, greedy, soulless, uncompassionate, unmitigated asshole.

 

Or because I'm simply too stupid to really understand the situation. 

 

.

On ‎7‎/‎16‎/‎2014 at 9:10 PM, Edward J said:

 

 

Oh dear, I was afraid of that.

 

It's not servers who make the hospitality industry go round and round.

 

It's the customers.

 

No customers, no industry.  Same as every other industry.

 

And the customers don't like forking out 20% in tips or even higher, nor do they like the fact that someone lobbied to get servers paid a "tipping wage".

 

First thing I want to reiterate is that I'm not saying I am personally opposed to, or in favor of, any changes in the tipping system.  Honestly, I don't really care.  Neither I nor any of my family is currently working as a server although, in the past, we all have.  And I'm a generous tipper, so if the initial cost of the restaurant food goes up, that won't affect me.  But the bottom line for me is that I believe it's up to the servers themselves to make that determination.  And not up to me to decide, no matter how compassionate and wonderful and moral and caring and empathetic a person I believe myself to be.

 

But, like many of us, I do have an opinion.  And I find these posts that seem to be insulting the general dining public (including me) as being too greedy and selfish to want servers to earn a living wage slightly offensive.

 

So to you I say that I guess I have more faith in the innate compassion of most human beings than you do.  There have been a great many instances throughout history where some exploited, downtrodden, dire, desperate group have made their plight known and others rally to the cause to fix things, and things do get better.  It's not hard to find lots of examples throughout the world, including in the US.  I still insist that if the servers were really so miserable as you seem to think with the current situation, and if they were out on the sidewalks striking because those greedy, selfish, customers and greedy, selfish, wealthy restaurant owners refused to do anything to help the poor victimized impoverished and exploited servers, the public would indeed rally 'round and do something, and things would change. 

 

But they're not.  They're not out on the sidewalks in front of the restaurants.  They're not writing opinion letters to all the news outlets.  And just saying, "Oh they can't; they're afraid they'll be fired!" isn't a good reason.  That's always been the case with exploited workers demonstrating and striking to get publicity in order to make their situation known.  That's always how it goes.  That's always the risk.  But, when their plight is dire enough, they take it.

 

So, if their situation is so unfair, why aren't they out in front of restaurants carrying signs and demanding change?

 

I repeat that, although some servers probably don't like the current system, a great many more do like the current system just fine.  And that if they didn't, they would be mounting some sort of huge revolt, and that we would all know about it, and that the general public would support a change.  You indicate that you don't believe that.  You seem to believe that only you are thoughtful, rational, sympathetic and compassionate enough to support a change - in comparison, of course, with the majority of the restaurant-going populace that are just a bunch of jerks.

 

I found this article really interesting.  The restaurant owner is considering going to a higher wage for FOH, but NOT because he thinks they're not earning enough.  His rationale is exactly the opposite.  He says they make too much in comparison to the BOH, and he's planning on taking some of the FOH money away from them and giving it to the BOH.

 

This really flies in the face of those that believe the situation is the other way around.  

 

Excerpt from article:  "The problem is, once you start raising prices past a certain point, you price yourself out of the market. People just won’t go to your restaurant because you’re too expensive. Then we have another problem, which is that when a server is getting $10.50 or $11 an hour, plus they’re pulling down between $150 and $300 a night in tips, it’s pretty hard to look a cook in the eye and say we cant afford to pay you $15 or $16 an hour. But of course if we make wages equitable between front and back of house, we will go out of business in a matter of months or weeks. It’s just…we can’t do it. It’s not possible. So everybody’s looking for a solution."

 

And this: "But yeah, it’s a crisis morally. I started out as a line cook. I was a line cook for two decades on and off. You would make $8, $10, $12 an hour. You’d work 10 hours and you’d make $80, $90, $100. And meanwhile the serving staff would walk away with 200 bucks. They were sniffing cocaine and fucking the waitresses and eating steak. We were drinking Budweiser and smoking dirt weed. And that was just the way it was. In those days, you could rent an apartment and you could live on being a cook almost anywhere you were. Unfortunately, that’s not true anymore."

 

Article:  http://www.playboy.com/articles/pok-poks-tipping-experiment-didnt-work-and-chef-andy-ricker-blames-l-a

 

So it turns out that it's the poor cooks on salary that we all really need to worry about.

 

Again, I repeat, I'm not taking a personal stance for or against the changes.  But I don't like being told that, if I'm not manning the barricades for a "livable wage" for the poor exploited servers, it's because I'm a selfish, greedy, soulless, uncompassionate, unmitigated asshole.

 

Or because I'm simply too stupid to really understand the situation. 

 

.

On ‎7‎/‎16‎/‎2014 at 9:10 PM, Edward J said:

 

 

Oh dear, I was afraid of that.

 

It's not servers who make the hospitality industry go round and round.

 

It's the customers.

 

No customers, no industry.  Same as every other industry.

 

And the customers don't like forking out 20% in tips or even higher, nor do they like the fact that someone lobbied to get servers paid a "tipping wage".

 

First thing I want to reiterate is that I'm not saying I am personally opposed to, or in favor of, any changes in the tipping system.  Honestly, I don't really care.  Neither I nor any of my family is currently working as a server although, in the past, we all have.  And I'm a generous tipper, so if the initial cost of the restaurant food goes up, that won't affect me.  But the bottom line for me is that I believe it's up to the servers themselves to make that determination.  And not up to me to decide, no matter how compassionate and wonderful and moral and caring a person I believe myself to be.

 

But, like many of us, I do have an opinion.  And I find these posts that seem to be insulting the general dining public (including me) as being too greedy and selfish to want servers to earn a living wage slightly offensive.

 

So to you I say that I guess I have more faith in the innate compassion of most human beings than you do.  There have been a great many instances throughout history where some exploited, downtrodden, dire, desperate group have made their plight known and others rally to the cause to fix things, and things do get better.  It's not hard to find lots of examples throughout the world, including in the US.  I still insist that if the servers were really so miserable as you seem to think with the current situation, and if they were out on the sidewalks striking because those greedy, selfish, customers and greedy, selfish, wealthy restaurant owners refused to do anything to help the poor victimized impoverished and exploited servers, the public would indeed rally 'round and do something, and things would change. 

 

But they're not.  They're not out on the sidewalks in front of the restaurants.  They're not writing opinion letters to all the news outlets.  And just saying, "Oh they can't; they're afraid they'll be fired!" isn't a good reason.  That's always been the case with exploited workers demonstrating and striking to get publicity in order to make their situation known.  That's always how it goes.  That's always the risk.  But, when their plight is dire enough, they take it.

 

So, if their situation is so unfair, why aren't they out in front of restaurants carrying signs and demanding change?

 

I repeat that, although some servers probably don't like the current system, a great many more do like the current system just fine.  And that if they didn't, they would be mounting some sort of huge revolt, and that we would all know about it, and that the general public would support a change.  You indicate that you don't believe that.  You seem to believe that only you are thoughtful, rational, sympathetic and compassionate enough to support a change - in comparison, of course, with the majority of the restaurant-going populace that are just a bunch of jerks.

 

I found this article really interesting.  The restaurant owner is considering going to a higher wage for FOH, but NOT because he thinks they're not earning enough.  His rationale is exactly the opposite.  He says they make too much in comparison to the BOH, and he's planning on taking some of the FOH money away from them and giving it to the BOH.

 

This really flies in the face of those that believe the situation is the other way around.  

 

Excerpt from article:  "The problem is, once you start raising prices past a certain point, you price yourself out of the market. People just won’t go to your restaurant because you’re too expensive. Then we have another problem, which is that when a server is getting $10.50 or $11 an hour, plus they’re pulling down between $150 and $300 a night in tips, it’s pretty hard to look a cook in the eye and say we cant afford to pay you $15 or $16 an hour. But of course if we make wages equitable between front and back of house, we will go out of business in a matter of months or weeks. It’s just…we can’t do it. It’s not possible. So everybody’s looking for a solution."

 

And this: "But yeah, it’s a crisis morally. I started out as a line cook. I was a line cook for two decades on and off. You would make $8, $10, $12 an hour. You’d work 10 hours and you’d make $80, $90, $100. And meanwhile the serving staff would walk away with 200 bucks. They were sniffing cocaine and fucking the waitresses and eating steak. We were drinking Budweiser and smoking dirt weed. And that was just the way it was. In those days, you could rent an apartment and you could live on being a cook almost anywhere you were. Unfortunately, that’s not true anymore."

 

Article:  http://www.playboy.com/articles/pok-poks-tipping-experiment-didnt-work-and-chef-andy-ricker-blames-l-a

 

So it turns out that it's the poor cooks on salary that we all really need to worry about.

 

Again, I repeat, I'm not taking a personal stance for or against the changes.  But I don't like being told that, if I'm not manning the barricades for a "livable wage" for the poor exploited servers, it's because I'm a selfish, greedy, soulless, uncompassionate, unmitigated asshole.

 

Or because I'm simply too stupid to really understand the situation. 

 

.

On ‎7‎/‎16‎/‎2014 at 9:10 PM, Edward J said:

 

 

Oh dear, I was afraid of that.

 

It's not servers who make the hospitality industry go round and round.

 

It's the customers.

 

No customers, no industry.  Same as every other industry.

 

And the customers don't like forking out 20% in tips or even higher, nor do they like the fact that someone lobbied to get servers paid a "tipping wage".

 

First thing I want to reiterate is that I'm not saying I am personally opposed to, or in favor of, any changes in the tipping system.  Honestly, I don't really care.  Neither I nor any of my family is currently working as a server although, in the past, we all have.  And I'm a generous tipper, so if the initial cost of the restaurant food goes up, that won't affect me.

 

But, like many of us, I do have an opinion.  And I find these posts that seem to be insulting the general dining public (including me) as being too greedy and selfish to want servers to earn a living wage slightly offensive.

 

So to you I say that I guess I have more faith in the innate compassion of most human beings than you do.  There have been a great many instances throughout history where some exploited, downtrodden, dire, desperate group have made their plight known and others rally to the cause to fix things, and things do get better.  It's not hard to find lots of examples throughout the world, including in the US.  I still insist that if the servers were really so miserable as you seem to think with the current situation, and if they were out on the sidewalks striking because those greedy, selfish, customers and greedy, selfish, wealthy restaurant owners refused to do anything to help the poor victimized impoverished and exploited servers, the public would indeed rally 'round and do something, and things would change. 

 

But they're not.  They're not out on the sidewalks in front of the restaurants.  They're not writing opinion letters to all the news outlets.  And just saying, "Oh they can't; they're afraid they'll be fired!" isn't a good reason.  That's always been the case with exploited workers demonstrating and striking to get publicity in order to make their situation known.  That's always how it goes.  That's always the risk.  But, when their plight is dire enough, they take it.

 

So, if their situation is so unfair, why aren't they out in front of restaurants carrying signs and demanding change?

 

I repeat that, although some servers probably don't like the current system, a great many more do like the current system just fine.  And that if they didn't, they would be mounting some sort of huge revolt, and that we would all know about it, and that the general public would support a change.  You indicate that you don't believe that.  You seem to believe that only you are thoughtful, rational, sympathetic and compassionate enough to support a change - in comparison, of course, with the majority of the restaurant-going populace that are just a bunch of jerks.

 

I found this article really interesting.  The restaurant owner is considering going to a higher wage for FOH, but NOT because he thinks they're not earning enough.  His rationale is exactly the opposite.  He says they make too much in comparison to the BOH, and he's planning on taking some of the FOH money away from them and giving it to the BOH.

 

This really flies in the face of those that believe the situation is the other way around.  

 

Excerpt from article:  "The problem is, once you start raising prices past a certain point, you price yourself out of the market. People just won’t go to your restaurant because you’re too expensive. Then we have another problem, which is that when a server is getting $10.50 or $11 an hour, plus they’re pulling down between $150 and $300 a night in tips, it’s pretty hard to look a cook in the eye and say we cant afford to pay you $15 or $16 an hour. But of course if we make wages equitable between front and back of house, we will go out of business in a matter of months or weeks. It’s just…we can’t do it. It’s not possible. So everybody’s looking for a solution."

 

And this: "But yeah, it’s a crisis morally. I started out as a line cook. I was a line cook for two decades on and off. You would make $8, $10, $12 an hour. You’d work 10 hours and you’d make $80, $90, $100. And meanwhile the serving staff would walk away with 200 bucks. They were sniffing cocaine and fucking the waitresses and eating steak. We were drinking Budweiser and smoking dirt weed. And that was just the way it was. In those days, you could rent an apartment and you could live on being a cook almost anywhere you were. Unfortunately, that’s not true anymore."

 

Article:  http://www.playboy.com/articles/pok-poks-tipping-experiment-didnt-work-and-chef-andy-ricker-blames-l-a

 

So it turns out that it's the poor cooks on salary that we all really need to worry about.

 

Again, I repeat, I'm not taking a personal stance for or against the changes.  But I don't like being told that, if I'm not manning the barricades for a "livable wage" for the poor exploited servers, it's because I'm a selfish, greedy, soulless, uncompassionate, unmitigated asshole.

 

Or because I'm simply too stupid to really understand the situation. 

 

.

On ‎7‎/‎16‎/‎2014 at 9:10 PM, Edward J said:

 

 

Oh dear, I was afraid of that.

 

It's not servers who make the hospitality industry go round and round.

 

It's the customers.

 

No customers, no industry.  Same as every other industry.

 

And the customers don't like forking out 20% in tips or even higher, nor do they like the fact that someone lobbied to get servers paid a "tipping wage".

 

First thing I want to reiterate is that I'm not saying I am personally opposed to, or in favor of, any changes in the tipping system.  Honestly, I don't really care.  Neither I nor any of my family is currently working as a server although, in the past, we all have.  And I'm a generous tipper, so if the initial cost of the restaurant food goes up, that won't affect me.

 

But, like many of us, I do have an opinion.  And I find these posts that seem to be insulting the general dining public (including me) as being too greedy and selfish to want servers to earn a living wage slightly offensive.

 

So to you I say that I guess I have more faith in the innate compassion of most human beings than you do.  There have been a great many instances throughout history where some exploited, downtrodden, dire, desperate group have made their plight known and others rally to the cause to fix things, and things do get better.  It's not hard to find lots of examples throughout the world, including in the US.  I still insist that if the servers were really so miserable as you seem to think with the current situation, and if they were out on the sidewalks striking because those greedy, selfish, customers and greedy, selfish, wealthy restaurant owners refused to do anything to help the poor victimized impoverished and exploited servers, the public would indeed rally 'round and do something, and things would change. 

 

But they're not.  They're not out on the sidewalks in front of the restaurants.  They're not writing opinion letters to all the news outlets.  And just saying, "Oh they can't; they're afraid they'll be fired!" isn't a good reason.  That's always been the case with exploited workers demonstrating and striking to get publicity in order to make their situation known.  That's always how it goes.  That's always the risk.  But, when their plight is dire enough, they take it.

 

So, if their situation is so unfair, why aren't they out in front of restaurants carrying signs and demanding change?

 

I repeat that, although some servers probably don't like the current system, a great many more do like the current system just fine.  And that if they didn't, they would be mounting some sort of huge revolt, and that we would all know about it, and that the general public would support a change.  You indicate that you don't believe that.  You seem to believe that only you are thoughtful, rational, sympathetic and compassionate enough to support a change - in comparison, of course, with the majority of the restaurant-going populace that are just a bunch of jerks.

 

I found this article really interesting.  The restaurant owner is considering going to a higher wage for FOH, but NOT because he thinks they're not earning enough.  His rationale is exactly the opposite.  He says they make too much in comparison to the BOH, and he's planning on taking some of the FOH money away from them and giving it to the BOH.

 

This really flies in the face of those that believe the situation is the other way around.  

 

Excerpt from article:  "The problem is, once you start raising prices past a certain point, you price yourself out of the market. People just won’t go to your restaurant because you’re too expensive. Then we have another problem, which is that when a server is getting $10.50 or $11 an hour, plus they’re pulling down between $150 and $300 a night in tips, it’s pretty hard to look a cook in the eye and say we cant afford to pay you $15 or $16 an hour. But of course if we make wages equitable between front and back of house, we will go out of business in a matter of months or weeks. It’s just…we can’t do it. It’s not possible. So everybody’s looking for a solution."

 

And this: "But yeah, it’s a crisis morally. I started out as a line cook. I was a line cook for two decades on and off. You would make $8, $10, $12 an hour. You’d work 10 hours and you’d make $80, $90, $100. And meanwhile the serving staff would walk away with 200 bucks. They were sniffing cocaine and fucking the waitresses and eating steak. We were drinking Budweiser and smoking dirt weed. And that was just the way it was. In those days, you could rent an apartment and you could live on being a cook almost anywhere you were. Unfortunately, that’s not true anymore."

 

Article:  http://www.playboy.com/articles/pok-poks-tipping-experiment-didnt-work-and-chef-andy-ricker-blames-l-a

 

So it turns out that it's the poor cooks on salary that we all really need to worry about.

 

Again, I repeat, I'm not taking a personal stance for or against the changes.  But I don't like being told that, if I'm not manning the barricades for a "livable wage" for the poor exploited servers, it's because I'm a selfish, greedy, soulless, uncompassionate asshole.

 

Or because I'm simply too stupid to really understand the situation. 

 

.

On ‎7‎/‎16‎/‎2014 at 9:10 PM, Edward J said:

 

 

Oh dear, I was afraid of that.

 

It's not servers who make the hospitality industry go round and round.

 

It's the customers.

 

No customers, no industry.  Same as every other industry.

 

And the customers don't like forking out 20% in tips or even higher, nor do they like the fact that someone lobbied to get servers paid a "tipping wage".

 

First thing I want to reiterate is that I'm not saying I am personally opposed to, or in favor of, any changes in the tipping system.  Honestly, I don't really care.  Neither I nor any of my family is currently working as a server although, in the past, we all have.  And I'm a generous tipper, so if the initial cost of the restaurant food goes up, that won't affect me.

 

But, like many of us, I do have an opinion.  And I find these posts that seem to be insulting the general dining public (including me) as being too greedy and selfish to want servers to earn a living wage slightly offensive.

 

So to you I say that I guess I have more faith in the innate compassion of most human beings than you do.  There have been a great many instances throughout history where some exploited, downtrodden, dire, desperate group have made their plight known and others rally to the cause to fix things, and things do get better.  It's not hard to find lots of examples throughout the world, including in the US.  I still insist that if the servers were really so miserable as you seem to think with the current situation, and if they were out on the sidewalks striking because those greedy, selfish, customers and greedy, selfish, wealthy restaurant owners refused to do anything to help the poor victimized impoverished and exploited servers, the public would indeed rally 'round and do something, and things would change. 

 

But they're not.  They're not out on the sidewalks in front of the restaurants.  They're not writing opinion letters to all the news outlets.  And just saying, "Oh they can't; they're afraid they'll be fired!" isn't a good reason.  That's always been the case with exploited workers demonstrating and striking to get publicity in order to make their situation known.  That's always how it goes.  That's always the risk.  But, when their plight is dire enough, they take it.

 

So, if their situation is so unfair, why aren't they out in front of restaurants carrying signs and demanding change?

 

I repeat that, although some servers probably don't like the current system, a great many more do like the current system just fine.  And that if they didn't, they would be mounting some sort of huge revolt, and that we would all know about it, and that the general public would support a change.  You indicate that you don't believe that.  You seem to believe that only you are thoughtful, rational, sympathetic and compassionate enough to support a change - in comparison, of course, with the majority of the restaurant-going populace that are just a bunch of jerks.

 

I found this article really interesting.  The restaurant owner is considering going to a higher wage for FOH, but NOT because he thinks they're not earning enough.  His rationale is exactly the opposite.  He says they make too much in comparison to the BOH, and he's planning on taking some of the FOH money away from them and giving it to the BOH.

 

This really flies in the face of those that believe the situation is the other way around.  

 

Excerpt from article:  "The problem is, once you start raising prices past a certain point, you price yourself out of the market. People just won’t go to your restaurant because you’re too expensive. Then we have another problem, which is that when a server is getting $10.50 or $11 an hour, plus they’re pulling down between $150 and $300 a night in tips, it’s pretty hard to look a cook in the eye and say we cant afford to pay you $15 or $16 an hour. But of course if we make wages equitable between front and back of house, we will go out of business in a matter of months or weeks. It’s just…we can’t do it. It’s not possible. So everybody’s looking for a solution."

 

And this: "But yeah, it’s a crisis morally. I started out as a line cook. I was a line cook for two decades on and off. You would make $8, $10, $12 an hour. You’d work 10 hours and you’d make $80, $90, $100. And meanwhile the serving staff would walk away with 200 bucks. They were sniffing cocaine and fucking the waitresses and eating steak. We were drinking Budweiser and smoking dirt weed. And that was just the way it was. In those days, you could rent an apartment and you could live on being a cook almost anywhere you were. Unfortunately, that’s not true anymore."

 

Article:  http://www.playboy.com/articles/pok-poks-tipping-experiment-didnt-work-and-chef-andy-ricker-blames-l-a

 

So it turns out that it's the poor cooks on salary that we all really need to worry about.

 

Again, I repeat, I'm not taking a personal stance for or against the changes.  But I don't like being told that, if I'm not manning the barricades for a "livable wage" for the poor exploited servers, it's because I'm a selfish, greedy, soulless, uncompassionate asshole.

 

Or, because I'm simply too stupid to really understand the situation. 

 

.

On ‎7‎/‎16‎/‎2014 at 9:10 PM, Edward J said:

 

 

Oh dear, I was afraid of that.

 

It's not servers who make the hospitality industry go round and round.

 

It's the customers.

 

No customers, no industry.  Same as every other industry.

 

And the customers don't like forking out 20% in tips or even higher, nor do they like the fact that someone lobbied to get servers paid a "tipping wage".

 

First thing I want to reiterate is that I'm not saying I am personally opposed to, or in favor of, any changes in the tipping system.  Honestly, I don't really care.  Neither I nor any of my family is currently working as a server although, in the past, we all have.  And I'm a generous tipper, so if the initial cost of the restaurant food goes up, that won't affect me.

 

But, like many of us, I do have an opinion.  And I find these posts that seem to be insulting the general dining public (including me) as being too greedy and selfish to want servers to earn a living wage slightly offensive.

 

So to you I say that I guess I have more faith in the innate compassion of most human beings than you do.  There have been a great many instances throughout history where some exploited, downtrodden, dire, desperate group have made their plight known and others rally to the cause to fix things, and things do get better.  It's not hard to find lots of examples throughout the world, including in the US.  I still insist that if the servers were really so miserable as you seem to think with the current situation, and if they were out on the sidewalks striking because those greedy, selfish, customers and greedy, selfish, wealthy restaurant owners refused to do anything to help the poor victimized impoverished and exploited servers, the public would indeed rally 'round and do something, and things would change. 

 

But they're not.  They're not out on the sidewalks in front of the restaurants.  They're not writing opinion letters to all the news outlets.  And just saying, "Oh they can't; they're afraid they'll be fired!" isn't a good reason.  That's always been the case with exploited workers demonstrating and striking to get publicity in order to make their situation known.  That's always how it goes.  That's always the risk.  But, when their plight is bad enough, they take it.

 

So, if their situation is so unfair, why aren't they out in front of restaurants carrying signs and demanding change?

 

I repeat that, although some servers probably don't like the current system, a great many more do like the current system just fine.  And that if they didn't, they would be mounting some sort of huge revolt, and that we would all know about it, and that the general public would support a change.  You indicate that you don't believe that.  You seem to believe that only you are thoughtful, rational, sympathetic and compassionate enough to support a change - in comparison, of course, with the majority of the restaurant-going populace that are just a bunch of jerks.

 

I found this article really interesting.  The restaurant owner is considering going to a higher wage for FOH, but NOT because he thinks they're not earning enough.  His rationale is exactly the opposite.  He says they make too much in comparison to the BOH, and he's planning on taking some of the FOH money away from them and giving it to the BOH.

 

This really flies in the face of those that believe the situation is the other way around.  

 

Excerpt from article:  "The problem is, once you start raising prices past a certain point, you price yourself out of the market. People just won’t go to your restaurant because you’re too expensive. Then we have another problem, which is that when a server is getting $10.50 or $11 an hour, plus they’re pulling down between $150 and $300 a night in tips, it’s pretty hard to look a cook in the eye and say we cant afford to pay you $15 or $16 an hour. But of course if we make wages equitable between front and back of house, we will go out of business in a matter of months or weeks. It’s just…we can’t do it. It’s not possible. So everybody’s looking for a solution."

 

And this: "But yeah, it’s a crisis morally. I started out as a line cook. I was a line cook for two decades on and off. You would make $8, $10, $12 an hour. You’d work 10 hours and you’d make $80, $90, $100. And meanwhile the serving staff would walk away with 200 bucks. They were sniffing cocaine and fucking the waitresses and eating steak. We were drinking Budweiser and smoking dirt weed. And that was just the way it was. In those days, you could rent an apartment and you could live on being a cook almost anywhere you were. Unfortunately, that’s not true anymore."

 

Article:  http://www.playboy.com/articles/pok-poks-tipping-experiment-didnt-work-and-chef-andy-ricker-blames-l-a

 

So it turns out that it's the poor cooks on salary that we all really need to worry about.

 

Again, I repeat, I'm not taking a personal stance for or against the changes.  But I don't like being told that, if I'm not manning the barricades for a "livable wage" for the poor exploited servers, it's because I'm a selfish, greedy, soulless, uncompassionate asshole.

 

Or, because I'm simply too stupid to really understand the situation. 

 

.

On ‎7‎/‎16‎/‎2014 at 9:10 PM, Edward J said:

 

 

Oh dear, I was afraid of that.

 

It's not servers who make the hospitality industry go round and round.

 

It's the customers.

 

No customers, no industry.  Same as every other industry.

 

And the customers don't like forking out 20% in tips or even higher, nor do they like the fact that someone lobbied to get servers paid a "tipping wage".

 

First thing I want to reiterate is that I'm not saying I am personally opposed to, or in favor of, any changes in the tipping system.  Honestly, I don't really care.  Neither I nor any of my family is currently working as a server although, in the past, we all have.  And I'm a generous tipper, so if the initial cost of the restaurant food goes up, that won't affect me.

 

But, like many of us, I do have an opinion.  And I find these posts that seem to be insulting the general dining public (including me) as being too greedy and selfish to want servers to earn a living wage slightly offensive.

 

So to you I say that I guess I have more faith in the innate compassion of most human beings than you do.  There have been a great many instances throughout history where some exploited, downtrodden, dire, desperate group have made their plight known and others rally to the cause to fix things, and things do get better.  It's not hard to find lots of examples throughout the world, including in the US.  I still insist that if the servers were really so miserable as you seem to think with the current situation, and if they were out on the sidewalks striking because those greedy, selfish, customers and greedy, selfish, wealthy restaurant owners refused to do anything to help the poor victimized impoverished and exploited servers, the public would indeed rally 'round and do something, and things would change. 

 

But they're not.  They're not out on the sidewalks in front of the restaurants.  They're not writing opinion letters to all the news outlets.  And just saying, "Oh they can't; they're afraid they'll be fired!" isn't a good reason.  That's always been the case with exploited workers demonstrating and striking to get publicity in order to make their situation known.  That's always how it goes.  That's always the risk.

 

So, if their situation is so unfair, why aren't they out in front of restaurants carrying signs and demanding change?

 

I repeat that, although some servers probably don't like the current system, a great many more do like the current system just fine.  And that if they didn't, they would be mounting some sort of huge revolt, and that we would all know about it, and that the general public would support a change.  You indicate that you don't believe that.  You seem to believe that only you are thoughtful, rational, sympathetic and compassionate enough to support a change - in comparison, of course, with the majority of the restaurant-going populace that are just a bunch of jerks.

 

I found this article really interesting.  The restaurant owner is considering going to a higher wage for FOH, but NOT because he thinks they're not earning enough.  His rationale is exactly the opposite.  He says they make too much in comparison to the BOH, and he's planning on taking some of the FOH money away from them and giving it to the BOH.

 

This really flies in the face of those that believe the situation is the other way around.  

 

Excerpt from article:  "The problem is, once you start raising prices past a certain point, you price yourself out of the market. People just won’t go to your restaurant because you’re too expensive. Then we have another problem, which is that when a server is getting $10.50 or $11 an hour, plus they’re pulling down between $150 and $300 a night in tips, it’s pretty hard to look a cook in the eye and say we cant afford to pay you $15 or $16 an hour. But of course if we make wages equitable between front and back of house, we will go out of business in a matter of months or weeks. It’s just…we can’t do it. It’s not possible. So everybody’s looking for a solution."

 

And this: "But yeah, it’s a crisis morally. I started out as a line cook. I was a line cook for two decades on and off. You would make $8, $10, $12 an hour. You’d work 10 hours and you’d make $80, $90, $100. And meanwhile the serving staff would walk away with 200 bucks. They were sniffing cocaine and fucking the waitresses and eating steak. We were drinking Budweiser and smoking dirt weed. And that was just the way it was. In those days, you could rent an apartment and you could live on being a cook almost anywhere you were. Unfortunately, that’s not true anymore."

 

Article:  http://www.playboy.com/articles/pok-poks-tipping-experiment-didnt-work-and-chef-andy-ricker-blames-l-a

 

So it turns out that it's the poor cooks on salary that we all really need to worry about.

 

Again, I repeat, I'm not taking a personal stance for or against the changes.  But I don't like being told that, if I'm not manning the barricades for a "livable wage" for the poor exploited servers, it's because I'm a selfish, greedy, soulless, uncompassionate asshole.

 

Or, because I'm simply too stupid to really understand the situation. 

 

.

On ‎7‎/‎16‎/‎2014 at 9:10 PM, Edward J said:

 

 

Oh dear, I was afraid of that.

 

It's not servers who make the hospitality industry go round and round.

 

It's the customers.

 

No customers, no industry.  Same as every other industry.

 

And the customers don't like forking out 20% in tips or even higher, nor do they like the fact that someone lobbied to get servers paid a "tipping wage".

 

First thing I want to reiterate is that I'm not saying I am personally opposed to, or in favor of, any changes in the tipping system.  Honestly, I don't really care.  Neither I nor any of my family is currently working as a server although, in the past, we all have.  And I'm a generous tipper, so if the initial cost of the restaurant food goes up, that won't affect me.

 

But, like many of us, I do have an opinion.  And I find these posts that seem to be insulting the general dining public (including me) as being too greedy and selfish to want servers to earn a living wage slightly offensive.

 

So to you I say that I guess I have more faith in the innate compassion of most human beings than you do.  There have been a great many instances throughout history where some exploited, downtrodden, dire, desperate group have made their plight known and others rally to the cause to fix things, and things do get better.  It's not hard to find lots of examples throughout the world, including in the US.  I still insist that if the servers were really so miserable as you seem to think with the current situation, and if they were out on the sidewalks striking because those greedy, selfish, customers and greedy, selfish, wealthy restaurant owners refused to do anything to help the poor victimized impoverished and exploited servers, the public would indeed rally 'round and do something, and things would change. 

 

But they're not.  They're not out on the sidewalks in front of the restaurants.  They're not writing opinion letters to all the news outlets.  And just saying, "Oh they can't; they're afraid they'll be fired!" isn't a good reason.  That's always been the case with exploited workers demonstrating and striking to get publicity in order to make their situation known.  That's always how it goes.  That's always the risk.

 

So, if their situation is so unfair, why aren't they out in front of restaurants carrying signs and demanding change?

 

I repeat that, although some servers probably don't like the current system, a great many more do like the current system just fine.  And that if they didn't, they would be mounting some sort of huge revolt, and that we would all know about it, and that the general public would support a change.  You indicate that you don't believe that.  You seem to believe that only you are thoughtful, rational, sympathetic and compassionate enough to support a change - in comparison, of course, with the majority of the restaurant-going populace that are just a bunch of jerks.

 

I found this article really interesting.  The restaurant owner is considering going to a higher wage for FOH, but NOT because he thinks they're not earning enough.  His rationale is exactly the opposite.  He says they make too much in comparison to the BOH, and he's planning on taking some of the FOH money away from them and giving it to the BOH.

 

This really flies in the face of those that believe the situation is the other way around.  

 

Excerpt from article:  "The problem is, once you start raising prices past a certain point, you price yourself out of the market. People just won’t go to your restaurant because you’re too expensive. Then we have another problem, which is that when a server is getting $10.50 or $11 an hour, plus they’re pulling down between $150 and $300 a night in tips, it’s pretty hard to look a cook in the eye and say we cant afford to pay you $15 or $16 an hour. But of course if we make wages equitable between front and back of house, we will go out of business in a matter of months or weeks. It’s just…we can’t do it. It’s not possible. So everybody’s looking for a solution."

 

And this: "But yeah, it’s a crisis morally. I started out as a line cook. I was a line cook for two decades on and off. You would make $8, $10, $12 an hour. You’d work 10 hours and you’d make $80, $90, $100. And meanwhile the serving staff would walk away with 200 bucks. They were sniffing cocaine and fucking the waitresses and eating steak. We were drinking Budweiser and smoking dirt weed. And that was just the way it was. In those days, you could rent an apartment and you could live on being a cook almost anywhere you were. Unfortunately, that’s not true anymore."

 

Article:  http://www.playboy.com/articles/pok-poks-tipping-experiment-didnt-work-and-chef-andy-ricker-blames-l-a

 

So it turns out that it's the poor cooks on salary that we all really need to worry about.

 

Again, I repeat, I'm not taking a personal stance for or against the changes.  But I don't like being told that, if I'm not manning the barricades for a "livable wage" for servers, it's because I'm a selfish, greedy, soulless, uncompassionate asshole.

 

Or, because I'm simply too stupid to really understand the situation. 

 

.