Submitted via IRC for SoyCow9228
Back in December, we reported on the Trump administration's proposed changes to tip-pooling regulations that would allow employers to pocket servers' tips as long as the employees continue to make minimum wage. That's right: Employers could take servers' tips and just dole out the minimum wage. But wait, it gets worse!
Turns out, the Department Of Labor knew how crappy this would make life for restaurant employees. This Bloomberg Law article, citing sources within the agency, reveals that the Department Of Labor knowingly buried its own data that showed restaurant workers would lose billions of dollars in gratuities under the new proposal.
Source: https://thetakeout.com/proposed-tip-pooling-law-is-so-bad-for-workers-the-gove-1822664111
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Tuesday February 06 2018, @06:08PM (2 children)
The issue in the US is that tipped workers have a minimum wage that's less than half of the regular minimum wage. Restaurant owners started pulling the trick of underpaying their servers and demanding their customers make up the difference with tips back in the 1930's, and have never gone back because it would cut into their profit margins to do so and the US government didn't make them change their ways.
I mean, a system where we just paid waitstaff a living wage and adjusted the prices accordingly? While also avoiding making communications majors do long division at the table? Why that would be pure madness!
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday February 06 2018, @06:28PM
I knew about the causes (and understood them**), thanks for the historical details, I wasn't aware that the "custom" is that old (and thus much harder to normalize).
** with the - maybe unnecessary - note that "understanding != acceptance"
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 07 2018, @10:55AM
$2.13 vs $7.25
So, less than a third.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]