Per Se ends tipping in favor of service charge

[JohnL]

I think that there should always be incentive to perform as well as rewards for performance.

The question is who determines the just what constitutes "performance" and what the incentives are and how they are provided.

Currently, the customer has a level of control over this. Keller seems to be saying that he wants to determine what performance he wants from his wait staff and he wants to control the incentives. One goal would be to establish a level of performance that runs consistantly throughout the entire staff.

The fact is , as born out by many posts here-there is no perfect situation

For an establishment like Per se --it would not be optimum to have inconsistant service delivery to customers, Keller seems to want to execute his vision for dining--to include every aspect of the experience from the point of making the reservation to the time the customer walks out the door. From the decor and atmosphere to the demeanor and professionalism of every employee.

I have noted that Keller often speaks of what he wants the customer to experience what he is doing.

Would this work in other restaurants? Perhaps for those at the level of Per Se-JGV, Le Bernardin etc.

Will Keller find staff to thrive in this environment--probably--and it is up to keller to keep those employees happy and well paid-otherwise this will most definitely not work to the ends keller is hoping to achieve!

[rich]

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."

[Bux]

I know that at one of NYC's four star restaurants, clients with "house accounts," that is those who sign their checks and get a bill at the end of the month, a 20% service charge is automatically added to the bill. I don't know what percentage of those regulars do the special handshake with the captain or manager, nor do I know their Christmans gift pattern, but I suspect those regulars all receive excellent treatment.

I'm pretty well convinced that the waiter's making the most in tips on any given night at most good restaurants are those who get the "good" tables rather than those who give the best service. I've read the same studies Fat Guy has. They all show that tipping is related to the tipper's habits and attitude and that each tipper is far less influenced by the actual service received.

As for rewarding good waiters and not paying for bad service, it's not an option I have in most other places. Certainly I don't have that in department stores or other shops. I wonder how many people tip more for a good haircut than a bad haircut. Most people I know just take their business elsewhere, which is what happens as well in restaurants. I don't care how good the food is, people will rarely return if they experience bad service. For that reason, it's essential for a fine restaurant to make sure they employ only excellent waiterstaff.

As for pooling tips as an unworkable example of communism in the captialist society of a restaurant, the waiter works for the company and by all rights should be paid a salary by the company. If I'm responsible for determining his wage after the meal, why don't I have the same privilege of stiffing the cook, or perhaps if I'm responsible for paying for the waiter, I should contract independently for service. In truth, the restaurant owner is responsibile for seeing to it that I not only get good food, but good service as well. They are, as one poster has already noted, inseparalble when it comes to my overall dining experience.

[Fat Guy]

I'd say that 80-90% of the associates starting at Cravath were not particularly motivated by the possibility of partnership. They knew that only about 1 in 50 would make it, and that only about 3 or 4 in 50 would stick around long enough to try to make it. No, I think the incentives were multi-causal -- they couldn't be reduced to any one thing. And I think that's the same in many business contexts, including restaurants: take-home cash pay is one incentive, but it can be part of a matrix of incentives including some that can easily be reduced to monetary value and many that can't.

It's also worth noting that incentives aren't universal. Some people value money more than others. Some are willing to demean themselves for relatively small amounts of money. Some just want enough money for food and shelter and after that they focus on being treated well or having a sense of accomplishment. When Per Se switches over to the new system, it may lose some staff who have certain priorities, but it will likely gain other staff with other priorities. Whether those new staff will provide better, worse or different service is an open question.

[JohnL]

As a customer-- I do not really want to know the details of how the establishement compensates its employees.

And, as a customer, it would be nice to not have to worry about or be concerned with tipping.

I simply review the check and pay for my dining experience.

I'd love to not have to try to figure out just who is covered by my tip. Captain, waiter, busboy. sommelier etc etc etc.

I'd love to not be concerned that I tip enough.

I'd also love it if I did not have to fumble for money to tip a coat check person and a parking valet (though many of these folks as I understand it are "independant contractors") and that is my point--I'd just prefer to not have to be concerned with any of it.

It is nice when the restaurant " takes care" of everything.--isn't taking care of the customer what this is all about in the end?

I also assume that when I get good service--it is the result of happy employees who are well compensated --in the case of a restaurant--I also know that my tip is part of their overall compensation--putting me in the position of 'supplementing" their salary which is determined/established with the fact that I the customer, will be providing the rest of the employee's compensation.

I do not know the IRS ramifications of all this or why exactly this system has come to be--it would be intertesting. But I do know that especially with finer restaurants--where prices are high--removing anything that a customer has to "worry" about-can only enhance the overall experience--lest the customer is a "cheapskate" or arrogant SOB who likes to reward and punish service employees.

In the end--I want everyone to be happy and well paid!

[TPO]

For an establishment like Per se --it would not be optimum to have  inconsistant service delivery to customers, Keller seems to want to execute his vision for dining--to include every aspect of the experience from the point of making the reservation to the time the customer walks out the door. From the decor and atmosphere to the demeanor and professionalism of every employee.

I have noted that Keller often speaks of what he wants the customer to experience what he is doing.

←

This makes sense to me. Servers who are working for $3 an hour plus tips and therefore something of an independent contractor probably should have some say (within reason) in how they provide that service because their salary depends on it. If a restaurant wants consistency and wants to be able to determine how each server will perform their jobs, then pooling (as well as a decent base hourly wage) would seem to make sense.

I know it's just semantics, but I hope Per Se does not call this automatic 20% charge a "gratuity." If a restaurant wants to operate this way, that's fine -- but let's not pretent it's a tip when it's really a charge for labor.

[Fat Guy]

Per se calls it a service charge: "Beginning September 1st, in lieu of gratuity, per se will be adding a 20% service charge to all guest checks."

[jackal10]

Do they leave the credit card slips open as well. In other words do they still expect a tip, and have just increased their prices by 20%?

efited to add plus sales tax

Edited August 9, 2005 by jackal10 (log)

[rich]

I'm pretty well convinced that the waiter's making the most in tips on any given night at most good restaurants are those who get the "good" tables rather than those who give the best service. I've read the same studies Fat Guy has. They all show that tipping is related to the tipper's habits and attitude and that each tipper is far less influenced by the actual service received.

As for rewarding good waiters and not paying for bad service, it's not an option I have in most other places. Certainly I don't have that in department stores or other shops. I wonder how many people tip more for a good haircut than a bad haircut. Most people I know just take their business elsewhere, which is what happens as well in restaurants. I don't care how good the food is, people will rarely return if they experience bad service. For that reason, it's essential for a fine restaurant to make sure they employ only excellent waiterstaff. 

As for pooling tips as an unworkable example of communism in the captialist society of a restaurant, the waiter works for the company and by all rights should be paid a salary by the company. If I'm responsible for determining his wage after the meal, why don't I have the same privilege of stiffing the cook, or perhaps if I'm responsible for paying for the waiter, I should contract independently for service. In truth, the restaurant owner is responsibile for seeing to it that I not only get good food, but good service as well. They are, as one poster has already noted, inseparalble when it comes to my overall dining experience.

←

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.

Edited August 9, 2005 by rich (log)

[rich]

If a restaurant wants consistency and wants to be able to determine how each server will perform their jobs, then pooling (as well as a decent base hourly wage) would seem to make sense.

I

←

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.

[robyn]

I don't think anyone has mentioned it - but some reasons to have an automatic service charge are: 1) to eliminate confusion when you have large numbers of customers who are not from the US; and 2) to make things easier when you are serving relatively large tables of diners. When I dine at finer restaurants in the world - it's not unusual to see "business" dinner parties of 6 or more - and frequently the people in those groups are from different countries.

Someone up thread also mentioned bad service at a golf club with an automatic service charge. The place where I play golf frequently has large convention/meeting/tourist groups - and many of the people aren't from the US. There's an automatic 18% service charge - and the service is terrific. So I don't think service necessarily suffers if it is "compris". Robyn

[slkinsey]

Some are willing to demean themselves for relatively small amounts of money.

Indeed, there is a whole industry founded upon this basis. We call it "the performing arts." Large portions of my performing career could be described as "demeaning myself for relatively small amounts of money."

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.

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.

Just look at this thread, or indeed around this whole site. I would hazard to say that the eGullet Society membership is, on a whole, more sophisticated and savvy about these things than the average restaurant customer. And yet, the vast majority of us would describe our typical tipping practice as: "I always tip X% unless the service is egregiously bad or beyond-the-call-of-duty exceptional." I know this is true for me. Is there anyone on this thread for whom it is not true? Can anyone here honestly say, "I regularly vary the tip between 10% and 30% based on my evaluation of the service I have received"? Do you find yourself thinking, "the service was pretty good, but just a touch below what I prefer -- tonight I'll tip 17% instead of 20"? I think a lot of people like the idea, but don't actually do it in practice. Unless a substantial number of people speak up and say that they don't tend to tip on a standard percentage unless the circumstances are exceptionally positive or negative, that puts the lie to the idea that "waiters are rewarded for good service with larger tips."

[Busboy]

I think Steve has this right. One point that I haven't seen him make, (and I may have missed it) is that at a high-end restaurant, every table really is a team effort. When I've worked in high-end restaurants, each table does indeed have a captain or headwaiter or main waiter person who typically discussed the menus and takes the orders. But from the moment the order goes in, every server is "your" server. Over many courses, it wouldn't be unusual for every server in the joint to drop by a table at one time or another, to serve or to clear or to pour wine or to get a drink order because they noticed you looking around expectantly. This isn't TGI Friday's, where you run your own section (though I'll bet they expect teamwork, as well, but at a lower level), every person has to have every other person's back, from the busboys to the Maitre d', or it doesn't work.

And, for those who think that pooling is some kind of communist conspiracy to protect the less competent, I found myself unemployed when one restaurant decided that I wasn't pulling my weight (because I am a disorganized spaz, not because I was lazy, but the effect on service was more or less the same.) AT another place, there was an extensive break-in period before a waiter was awarded a full share in the night's tips.

[Busboy]

Keep in mind ,when arguing the performance/tip relationship that "good" waiters have a couple of different ways to earn more money. I think they do make more money per table, but that the percentage per check difference would not be that high. But, good waiters have higher checks, because they sell more and because people stay longer. Good waiters get better shifts. Good waiters work at better restaurants. And, sometimes, at a swell place like Per Se (I'd bet) a big spender spender drops a twenty or a fifty on his captain because he suspects the tips are pooled, and wants to take care of "my guy."

[rich]

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.

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.

Edited August 9, 2005 by rich (log)

[rich]

And, for those who think that pooling is some kind of communist conspiracy to protect the less competent, I found myself unemployed when one restaurant decided that I wasn't pulling my weight (because I am a disorganized spaz, not  because I was lazy, but the effect on service was more or less the same.)  AT another place, there was an extensive break-in period before a waiter was awarded a full share in the night's tips.

←

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.

Edited August 9, 2005 by rich (log)

[rich]

And, sometimes, at a swell place like Per Se (I'd bet) a big spender spender drops a twenty or a fifty on his captain because he suspects the tips are pooled, and wants to take care of  "my guy."

←

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

[rich]

Unless a substantial number of people speak up and say that they don't tend to tip on a standard percentage unless the circumstances are exceptionally positive or negative, that puts the lie to the idea that "waiters are rewarded for good service with larger tips."

←

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?

Edited August 9, 2005 by rich (log)

[slkinsey]

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.

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?

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 mine.

Perhaps I misread what you posted. I'm not trying to misrepresent your position. It seems to me that, implied in your statement ". . . my experience showed the best waiters received the better tips. If the studies show otherwise, it's time to conduct new studies . . ." is the argument that the studies showing otherwise are wrong. That still seems to be what you're saying. "Do it again and get it right" says that it was "done wrong" -- n'est-ce pas? My assumption, on the other hand, is that the studies have already been done right. It is often the case that studies which examine situations like these with control, rigor and statistical analysis reveal things which seem to be at odds with beliefs formed through anecdotal experience. There are many reasons it may have seemed to you that the "good waiters" were making higher percentage tips than the "bad waiters" when there was not a significant and meaningful difference over time. For example, a few notably large tips might create that impression but wouldn't make a meaningful difference over the course of a year, or the ability of the "good waiters" to generate higher bills might have created the impression that the higher tips were due to a higher percentage. And, of course, there might be reasons that the "good waiters" were making a higher percentage of tips that would be ruled out in a statistical analysis where one is attempting to make "quality of service" the only independent variable. For example, the "good waiters" might be preferentially offered better tables by management or might have longstanding relationships with certain generous customers. Of course, a more meaningful comparison -- especially at the high end -- is not between the "bad waiters" and the "good waiters" but rather between the "best waiters" and the "good waiters."

[slkinsey]

Unless a substantial number of people speak up and say that they don't tend to tip on a standard percentage unless the circumstances are exceptionally positive or negative, that puts the lie to the idea that "waiters are rewarded for good service with larger tips."

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?

There is only so often that a waiter can give "exceptional service" at a given level. And I doubt very much that it is frequently enough to meaningfully affect the bottom line over time.

Also, I am quite sure that waiter at Per Se benefits more in the long run from the 20% service charge. Okay, on the individual case they might miss out on your extra 5%. But there are most likely going to be a lot more people tipping 15% compared to your 25%, so that the standard 20% service charge eventually averages out to more money. Remember, 20% may be "standard" in NYC (although a surprising number of NYCers still tip 15%) -- but it has got to be higher than the national average. Going from my own anecdocal experience, when I tip 20% our of town, the waiters usually seem very happy -- like they got a larger-than-expected tip.

[Busboy]

Please mentally insert a smile next to "communict conspiracy."

When I was working at the tuxedoed French place, if somebody slipped a capain an extra tip, tradition dictated that he was allowed to keep it separate from the pool (assuming there was a proper tip on the check).

In terms of incentives, I think pooling had a positive incentive. Since every table affected your tip, you you wanted to make sure every table got great service. And, never underestimate the power of peer pressure. People know how much their fellow waiters are earning for them.

More studies on tipping than you ever thought existed (pointing towards Sam's position, as far as I can tell) here.

One thing about the methodology makes me nervous about the findings, though. They appear to question diners immediately after a meal regarding their Satisfaction with the experience, and compare it to the tip, finding that there is little correlation. I think a study in which they tracked individual diners' performances over a series of meals, and compared satisfaction and tipping, would be more revealing.

From a brief look it appears that the main study shoes that some people are just good tippers or bad tippers, and the tip is a unrelated to the experience -- the server gets 12% or 18% or 25% based on the personality of the person leaving the tip, not the level of performance. Fair enough. What I want to know is if the person who tips 12% despite a satisfactory dining performance actually have a range. Do they tip 10% when they're really pissed off and 15% when they're ecstatic? In other words, even though a good server's tips is, on any given check, relatively unrelated to service, does the good server, on average, get a couple more percentage points per check by moving Mr. 12% to 14% and Ms 22% to 25%? (In which case both Sam and Rich may be right).

By the way, what does matter? Drawing a smiley face on the check, touching shoulders, crouching and other cheap psychological ploys.

[rich]

Perhaps I misread what you posted.  I'm not trying to misrepresent your position.  It seems to me that, implied in your statement ". . . my experience showed the best waiters received the better tips. If the studies show otherwise, it's time to conduct new studies . . ." is the argument that the studies showing otherwise are wrong.  That still seems to be what you're saying.  "Do it again and get it right" says that it was "done wrong" -- n'est-ce pas?  My assumption, on the other hand, is that the studies have already been done right.  It is often the case that studies which examine situations like these with control, rigor and statistical analysis reveal things which seem to be at odds with beliefs formed through anecdotal experience.  There are many reasons it may have seemed to you that the "good waiters" were making higher percentage tips than the "bad waiters" when there was not a significant and meaningful difference over time.  For example, a few notably large tips might create that impression but wouldn't make a meaningful difference over the course of a year, or the ability of the "good waiters" to generate higher bills might have created the impression that the higher tips were due to a higher percentage.  And, of course, there might be reasons that the "good waiters" were making a higher percentage of tips that would be ruled out in a statistical analysis where one is attempting to make "quality of service" the only independent variable.  For example, the "good waiters" might be preferentially offered better tables by management or might have longstanding relationships with certain generous customers.  Of course, a more meaningful comparison -- especially at the high end --  is not between the "bad waiters" and the "good waiters" but rather between the "best waiters" and the "good waiters."

←

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.

[rich]

By the way, what does matter?  Drawing a smiley face on the check, touching shoulders, crouching and other cheap psychological ploys.

←

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.

[Capaneus]

That's how they do it in France.

←

That's because in France the waitstaff makes a living wage *before* tips. Which is the problem with your formulation: what we are dealing with here is a profession where the restaurant owners have made servers' earnings contingent on what is by definition (look up "gratuity") a voluntary contribution from the patron. *That*, not surprisingly, has created a number of problems, but I fail to see why some in the restaurant community insist on making it *my* problem.

If you don't like the system, change the system. Pay your servers a fair living wage, and return the tip to the realm of the voluntary "thank you" gift it was always meant to be. Restaurants finding a way to cheapen out on salaries isn't in any way the fault of the customer.

[Peter B Wolf]

Per se calls it a service charge: "Beginning September 1st, in lieu of gratuity, per se will be adding a 20% service charge to all guest checks."

←

A couple of questions and points to make.

Does NY State/City law provide for 'minimum' state wage law for service personel or ist it like MA where service personel does NOT receive state minimum wage?

Do you really think that restaurant patrons know the difference between 'Gratuity/Tip' and 'Service Charge' ?

I think not. I'll bet that more than 75% of all customers think that this 'service charge' will be paid out to servers (mainly).

Which in turn the establishment does not legally have to, since "Service" in this case is not defined.

Do you believe customers at Per Se will totally and understandably stop leaving a tip, or will they, as most patrons more often look only at the bottom line Dollar amount, still tip? And, even if they understand it, then at what percent?

Also, is it not true, and I stand corrected - as always, that the larger the bill the lesser the "percent" amount of tipping/

Example: Party of six, total bill with tax and beverages $ 900.00

next, three parties of two, each party's bill $ 300.00

I venture to say party of six will tip $ 150.00 (16.7%)

and the other three parties will tip $ 60.00 ea. (20%)

I do "tip" at 20%, never 'after tax', Cocktails and Cordials/Liqueurs and bottled Wine at 15%. Wine above $ 50.00 - 10%, plus $ 10.00 for the Sommelier/Wine Steward. And if there is a "Service Charge" - NO Tip/gratuity.

Does this make me cheap? Remember, I retired after 49 years as Chef. Does that make a difference? You tell me. You can't hurt me - I am not allowed to posess feelings anymore.