Amazon Sued by District of Columbia for 'Stealing' Delivery Driver Tips (bloomberg.com) 126
Washington DC's attorney general is suing Amazon, seeking civil penalties for allegedly misleading consumers who thought they were tipping delivery drivers but had the money diverted to cover the couriers' base pay. From a report: The case, filed in Washington DC Superior Court, cites a 2021 settlement between the company and the Federal Trade Commission, in which the agency found that Amazon withheld tips meant for its gig-economy drivers for more than two years.
What's up with the title? (Score:3)
Re:What's up with the title? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is 'stealing' in 'quotes'? Do we feel there is some sort of ambiguity here?
Yes, If you are a business owner in the US, odds are that you feel that customer tips are money that is being stolen from you by your employees.
Re:What's up with the title? (Score:5, Informative)
One can get sued for defamation for implying a company is guilty before such is proven in a court of law. Usually the word "allegedly" is included to avoid such, but the editor may have felt that was too verbose for a title, so used quotes instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? So if I say "Amazon is a thief, and is run by a thief", I can be sued? Good thing I used quotes instead of leaving them off like this: Amazon is a thief, and is run by a thief.
Re:What's up with the title? (Score:4, Funny)
In theory, yes, but since no one actually reads this site anymore, they don't have a case. What you did was the same as whispering that in your basement closet.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not a jury would find you liable, it could possibly go either way. Amazon would argue that calling someone a thief is a specific statement of fact, and since Amazon hasn't been convicted of the crime of theft, it's an untrue statement. Your argument would be that just calling Amazon a thief isn't specific enough to be considered a statement of fact, so it should be considered an opinion that isn't subject to liability for defamation.
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK, you'd have to prove your statement.
I am in the UK and can prove that Amazon is a thief.
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing you didn't say "I want to kill the president of the United States of America" [youtube.com].
Re:What's up with the title? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to misunderstand how defamation works. Washington DC is, in fact, suing Amazon. They aren't allegedly suing. The article title isn't asserting as fact that Amazon did anything, or even implying any such thing, it's stating the demonstrable fact that DC has filed suit against Amazon for actions that DC claims Amazon took. How one wishes to characterize the allegations in that suit is opinion, and last I checked you're not going to hang a libel claim on that particular hook.
Erm... the "allegedly" goes before the stealing, not before the suing. The headline in the BBC style guide would be "Washington DC Suing Amazon over allegedly stealing workers tips". Punctuation notwithstanding (grammar Nazis need entertainment).
Re: (Score:2)
You see, I intended all of that to be taken as part of the idea expressed in the post. That is why I added it there, as opposed to making a different post, typing it into an open notepad window, or shouting it out into the street. I can see where this may have been confusing, as it was a very lengthy post. Considering that this reply is likely already dangerously close to reaching the outer edges of your attention span, I would l
Re: (Score:2)
Stealing is in quotes because it's a over-simplified paraphrase of the lawsuit which probably claims something like 'inappropriately comingled funds from tips and delivery feels in a general fund used to pay gig workers instead of holding tips separately for the individual worker assigned to that job which received a tip"
Journalists don't put allegedly in quotes as that would actually change the meaning. You're right though, that they do not assume guilt in their articles as it would (and has) resulted in
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon Sued by District of Columbia for 'Stealing' Delivery Driver Tips
While this does:
Amazon Sued by District of Columbia for Stealing Delivery Driver Tips
I am very well aware that it common practice in journalism to use the word "allegedly". I would certainly like to know where in my response you believe I indicated otherwise. This is because it very much is potentially libelous to write "person x committed crime y" in these circumstances, and this
Re: (Score:2)
One can get sued for defamation for implying a company is guilty before such is proven in a court of law. Usually the word "allegedly" is included to avoid such, but the editor may have felt that was too verbose for a title, so used quotes instead.
If a journalist makes a personal statement, then the qualifier term allegedly is needed. However, in this instance, the term is used to qualify a third-party statement, i.e., the complaint in the lawsuit. Not only is no qualifier is needed, but a qualifier changes the connotation of the original statement and is misleading. The quotes in this particular situation are incorrect, as the complaint makes a direct accusation, and the quotes attribute meaning to that complaint that attempts to convey a first-p
Re: (Score:3)
No. The quotes are correct (actually should be single quotes i believe) because it's a paraphrase of what the lawsuit says.
If the lawsuit directly alleged **amazon hired people for a taskforce to locate children and physically steal the candy from their hands** then ya....
Re:What's up with the title? (Score:4, Informative)
You'd also have to mention a corporation by name for that to happen,
"Amazon Sued by District of Columbia for 'Stealing' Delivery Driver Tips (bloomberg.com)"
You mean, like that? Dumbass.
Re: (Score:2)
One can get sued for defamation for implying a company is guilty before such is proven in a court of law. Usually the word "allegedly" is included to avoid such, but the editor may have felt that was too verbose for a title, so used quotes instead.
You'd also have to mention a corporation by name for that to happen,
"Amazon Sued by District of Columbia for 'Stealing' Delivery Driver Tips (bloomberg.com)"
You mean, like that? Dumbass.
So, I can now sue you for defamation because you neglected to call me an 'alleged dumbass' in order to avoid such.
Re: (Score:2)
Since I didn't name you, by your own statement, no, you can't. Dumbass.
Aside from "dumbass" not being a statement of fact, while "Amazon Sued by District of Columbia for 'Stealing' Delivery Driver Tips" is.
But you're too retarded to know why that matters, aren't you?
(That's a rhetorical question. That means there's no need to answer it, because the answer is obvious to anyone smarter than you.)
Re: (Score:2)
One can get sued for defamation for implying a company is guilty before such is proven in a court of law. Usually the word "allegedly" is included to avoid such, but the editor may have felt that was too verbose for a title, so used quotes instead.
You'd also have to mention a corporation by name for that to happen,
"Amazon Sued by District of Columbia for 'Stealing' Delivery Driver Tips (bloomberg.com)"
You mean, like that? Dumbass.
So, I can now sue you for defamation because you neglected to call me an 'alleged dumbass' in order to avoid such.
You can always sue, but I think you'd lose. There are two important defenses to libel that taustin could use.
First, libel doesn't apply when the claim is clearly a statement of opinion, not intended to convey to the reader that the author believes their statement to be true. Generic insults like "dumbass" are near-universally construed as statements of opinion.
Second, libel doesn't apply if the defamatory claim is true.
I'm sure a jury would agree that your failure to click the "Post Anonymously" box
Re: What's up with the title? (Score:2)
Re:What's up with the title? (Score:4, Interesting)
Not All Business Owners (my wife and I owned a coffee shop where everyone got more than minimum, plus all tips went to the employees), but yeah, way too many employers believe in "employees are replaceable drones". They are also shocked that employees have no loyalty towards their employers.
If you want the economy to improve, you need folks to have more disposable income, which means higher wages.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want the economy to improve, you need folks to have more disposable income, which means higher wages.
*heats house with "disposable" income*
Evil Geniuses: The Unmaking of America: A Recent History [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, irony.
Re: (Score:2)
[Posts anti-corporate screed being sold by Amazon]
Oh, irony.
Re:What's up with the title? (Score:5, Informative)
They are also shocked that employees have no loyalty towards their employers.
You can thank the 1980s for that. During that time period, it became acceptable to lay off people who had been on staff for decades and nuke their retirement plans. Previously, ownership tried to keep as many people on staff as possible while keeping the company going.
Re: (Score:2)
I retired early on my startup options after working my ass off every day since college. I know exactly all about valley management attitude because I was in those meetings with the C levels and the board and HR.
There were always a tiny number of superstars they'd do anything for (even if they weren't that great) and everyone else was barely a number. It was fucking bullshit. I'm not sure how I stumbled into the executive suite but I never forgot where I started and am grateful to the universe I never hav
Re: (Score:3)
Standard business practice: What's mine is mine, and what's yours shoul be mine too.
Many business owners really don't think tips belong to the person they money was given to. Tips are the reason that restaurant workers can be paid less than minimum wage. Even workers that aren't directly on the receiving end of tips can be paid below minimum wage for this reason in many places (ie, busboys, dish washers, etc), so many restaurants share the tips (tipping should be obsolete, but that's a separate issue). Bu
Re: (Score:2)
Standard business practice: What's mine is mine, and what's yours should be mine too.
Standard HUMAN practice aka piracy.
Re:What's up with the title? (Score:4, Interesting)
No, it's been tried and for other reasons. Ie, making sure that they actually pay a living wage, or at least the minimum wage. However customers seem to have rejected this. When service is included and a menu says to not tip, even if the menu says "we pay our workers a living wage", some customers were very upset at this. Reports seem to be that they want to punish/reward service, when in practice this really doesn't happen and they're always paying the 15-20% regardless of the service level. I think some have this idea that if service is bad that they can snub the server (who's likely having an overextended workload due to other servers being sick). That's the US though, in some other countries you never tip.
The tip is supposed to, in some theories, make up the gap between wages and minimum wage, and the rationale why minimum wage laws make an exception for restaurants. And yet, the customer still demands a tip even when knowing this isn't the case. I think the real problem is change and some people don't like it.
Re: (Score:3)
Wage theft is the most common type of theft. It's happened to almost everyone at some point in their lives, even if it was only their employer not paying them for an extra few minutes they worked. It's often done through theft of earned holiday time, making employees pay for things that employers are legally obliged to provide, unpaid overtime, and of course: theft of tips.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people are too afraid to speak up when it happens to them.
If you cannot afford to walk away from a job, it is hard to justify the risk of upsetting the boss by complaining over something small, so the bosses get away with it -over and over again until it becomes normal behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
If you feel like this, you do not belong in the service industry. Period.
A tip is something that I give to a person providing me with a service. That tip belongs to that person. Nobody else. That is strictly between me and that person. The business owner does not even enter that equation.
Re: (Score:3)
Genuine question (so dont read into this)...
Why is the person that brings the food or product to you the sole person entitled to the tip?
Why not any of the people supporting that person?
The obvious ones are all the front of house staff - if the restaurant has someone seating people, someone clearing tables, someone taking orders (often all one person, sometimes not). All contributing to the experience you have as a diner.
The non obvious ones are the rear of house staff - the chefs, the cooks, the people wh
Re: (Score:3)
Because the tip is for the service that I get from him. He has to deal with me and the uncertainty what kind of asshole I may be. Everyone else in the chain has a very well defined and expectable workload, the last person in that delivery chain does not. I can be difficult to deal with. Or I can make special requests beyond the normal defined delivery conditions. I cannot do this with anyone else in the chain because there is no way to convey that request to these people, and neither do they suffer for not
Re: (Score:3)
Normally single quotes (for a quote) are only used inside another quote, surrounded by double quotes.
However, the title is a direct copy of the Bloomberg title, who should know better.
Re: (Score:3)
"If you look on page 73 of the Bloomberg news handbook, it says to hse single quotes in headlines to save a skosh* more room over double."
* Holy gosh, I spelt that correctiez folirst try!
Re: (Score:2)
British convention is to use single quotes for the top level.
Re:What's up with the title? (Score:4)
What service is this for? I've never seen an option to tip a delivery driver and we've received 1000s of deliveries from Amazon.
Re:What's up with the title? (Score:4, Interesting)
Whole Foods orders - you can tip the delivery person (I never do, though - Amazon needs to pay them a proper wage, not rely on consumers overpaying for goods or services)
Re: What's up with the title? (Score:3)
Agreed. It's a very shitty American custom that needs to go away. A tip means you are either under paid or are under charging for your service. Plain and simple. If a tip is what makes you provide better service, then you are a shitty human being.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. It's a very shitty American custom that needs to go away. A tip means you are either under paid or are under charging for your service. Plain and simple. If a tip is what makes you provide better service, then you are a shitty human being.
While I'd like to agree with you on principle, in practice I find there is a large and distinct difference in the level of customer service between tipping and non-tipping regions. If you like quick, efficient and cheerful service, you're far better off in countries where tipping is expected. If you enjoy being served by people who are slow, sloppy and clearly annoyed that you're bothering them by patronizing their employer, go to countries where it is not.
That said, I do find the gradual inflation of the
Re: What's up with the title? (Score:2)
There is a possible middle ground (in the US), where waitstaff are paid reasonable wages, and tipping is allowed/encouraged for exceptional service. Your base wage should be the value of doing your job at a standard level of effort, and it must at least be a living wage. If you have a person going above and beyond, for whatever reason, then I don't see a problem with giving them an extra tip.
But the scale of that tip should be much smaller than the typical 15-20% in the US. I typically give 15% to someone w
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose that was a rhetorical question. But for anybody who is interested in how this was rationalized: 'In late 2016, the company secretly switched to a variable-pay system in which drivers' earnings could fluctuate based on an internal algorithm, regulators allege. Under that system, the government said, Amazon could advertise a payment of "$18-$24" for a particular delivery, but if a customer tipped $6 Amazon would pay th
Re: (Score:3)
Gig economy companies such as Amazon and Uber have recognized that they will never attract enough
Re: (Score:2)
A reader might infer theft from the use of the word 'stealing'. What Amazon has done here is fraud, not theft.
Re: What's up with the title? (Score:2)
It's not in implied quotes, it's in actual quotes.
Re: What's up with the title? (Score:2)
Because they didn't clearly steal anything. They asked their customers for a donation and many of them chose to donate potentially because they were misled as to where that money was going.
It's maybe fraud. But not stealing.
Re: (Score:2)
Old joke in a new dress: What's old school employment? Exploitation of man by man. And gig economy? The opposite thereof.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference being, in a gig economy, the exploited has literally sued to be exploited by the privileged rich.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds a bit like populist politics where people keep defending politicians that abuse them and laugh about them, not even behind their back but right in their face.
People still use them? (Score:2)
With all the abuses of its employees, its underhanded tactics, its crappy products which it both produces and knowingly sells, it's amazing people still buy from them.
One would have thought people would have wised up and stopped supporting this travesty of capitalism.
I guess laziness overcomes principles.
It's not laziness (Score:3)
On paper it's compet
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon's competitive strength is certainly not cost, their strong points are convenience, selection, and popularity...most everyone in the first world already has an Amazon account and has bought something from them so they're an easy option to go back to. Their prices are at least as high as Wal-Mart or Target or the average local brick n' mortar in my experience.
Amazon sells you a mix of the same name-brand premium stuff you can buy for about the same price from a local brick n' mortar, and the same cheap
Re: (Score:3)
When I can, I always shop in person. Amazon is abusive, not just to its workersbut also to it's parners. It is also to the economic system that demands competition. Amazon wants to the be the one and only market in existence. Walmart is the same way, they activelly attempt to destroy competition, sometimes by just undercutting the prices until the competition in town goes out of business and then raising the prices back up. We're really back in the era of monopolies again, but without the political will
Re: (Score:2)
we've been maintaining our economy by keeping prices on consumer goods low for 20 years.
Largely by importing vast amounts of goods from other countries, and paying them in US currency that the Treasury and the Fed simply conjure up as needed. You might call it "The Emperor's New Money".
And it's been since 1945 at least - 77 years and counting. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
There's cachet to bitch of Walmart, but it was pointed out 20 years ago Walmart was saving Americans, many lower income, back then more than $200 billion a year, greatly exceeding federal money for the poor.
Re: (Score:2)
On the flipside, how many Americans are lower income than they'd otherwise be because of walmart?
Where walmart killed their businesses, their employers, or even because they work at walmart?
As for the actual 200B number, can you provide a cite? Walmart's gross REVENUE in 2020 after 20 years of inflation and growth was 557 billion. That math doesn't add up. There's no way walmart was reducing costs to its shoppers by 200 billion... its gross revenue 20 years ago probably wasn't much more than that. And walma
Re: (Score:3)
I'd still rather be a rounding error than to sell out my principles.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd still rather be a rounding error than to sell out my principles.
Unless you are exceptionally virtuous, that might depend on how cold and hungry you are. As George Bernard Shaw accurately remarked, "A soul is a very expensive thing to keep: much more so than a motor car".
Re: (Score:2)
Who can afford ethics and moral in their shopping habits these days?
Not a civil dispute (Score:1)
This is obvious theft, lock up the perps and let them correct their illegal practices if they want their managers released.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect the "perps" are all "independent contractors" and that Amazon is completely blameless.
Nope. [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It's a common problem. Outsource it then wash your hands. It's exactly how many (including Trump) can knowingly hire undocumented workers while pretending to be blameless ("I didn't know, thanks for bringing it to my attention"). This is a major topic that comes up in my annual ethics training - we're still obliged to ensure partners and contractors follow the same set of ethics, and that major companies have had major judgements against them for these reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely true in every way. If I had mod points I'd hand you an "Informative".
Paywall (Score:4, Informative)
Here's the article without a paywall:
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/... [bloomberglaw.com]
Wage Theft (Score:2)
How could anyone at Amazon begin to think this was anything but outright theft?
I've heard a lot about wage theft in recent years, which is a long-standing problem in the construction industry where some subcontractors simply don't pay their workers or underpay them and just walk away. This is often combined with hiring undocumented workers, so the victims don't feel safe approaching the police. But it's usually small contractors with a dozen or fewer employees at a time, and prosecutors haven't always bee
not even employees but fake 1099ers with no contol (Score:2)
not even employees but fake 1099ers with no control over there job.
We need to fix that part and at least get them the min wage.
Re: (Score:3)
Amazon uses a lot of contract employees for deliveries, including through other companies. The article says this is about tips they've already paid out under a settlement with the FTC three years ago, and points out that the drivers involved in that were considered - by Amazon - to be independent contractors.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon uses a lot of contract employees for deliveries, including through other companies. The article says this is about tips they've already paid out under a settlement with the FTC three years ago, and points out that the drivers involved in that were considered - by Amazon - to be independent contractors.
Awwww ... you sweet summer child, you didn't read TFA did you?
Racine on Wednesday announced a new complaint against Amazon and Amazon Logistics Inc., accusing them of defrauding consumers by using tips to offset the companies’ own labor costs while advertising to customers that 100% of tips would go to drivers. ...
Racine’s office said the FTC didn’t have authority to award penalties beyond restitution. The D.C. lawsuit is seeking civil penalties for violations of the district’s consumer protection law and a court order blocking Amazon from using the same tip policy in the future. ...
“In the years Amazon had this policy in place, consumers in D.C. paid millions of dollars in ‘tips’ to reward drivers for providing a valuable service. Meanwhile, Amazon used much of those tips to save on its own operating costs, thereby deceiving both District consumers and drivers,” the attorney general’s office alleged in the complaint.
Amazon literally used these tips to pay drivers' base pay while advertising that 100% of the tips were going to the drivers on top of their base pay. In the estimation of the D.C. Attorney General that constitutes fraud. Just because the Federal Trade Commission is done kicking Amazon in the nuts for being a bunch of greedy corporate shit-stains does not mean that everybody else is. It sounds like D.C. Attorney General is delivering a big fat mor
Re: (Score:2)
This is about the same thing as the FTC case three years ago. The merits of either side's arguments do not change that.
So go jerk off in the basement some more, but try not too inhale too much Cheetos dust. It's bad for the lungs.
Re: (Score:2)
You must be a special kind of illiterate retard if you believe that's what you replied to.
Moron.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like you get subcontractors to make your misdeeds someone else's fault, Amazon just gets "independent" contractors or agencies. It all comes down to the handshake: I'm giving you $X to do this job for us, and I don't care how you do it or who you hire as long as I don't get any of the blame.
Re: (Score:2)
How could anyone at Amazon begin to think this was anything but outright theft?
That's Entitlement 101 for any business psychopath in good standing. Rather as your government sincerely believes that it owns everything - including you - but leaves you a little freedom and some trinkets to play with so it can toy with you while looking forward to the fun of crushing you later.
Hey, how about that - I managed to offend both Demoblicans and Republicrats in just two sentences!
Tipped Wage (Score:2)
Employers tend to be in the wrong with tips in the spirit of the law, it not legally, which is why so many give tips in cash directly to the person. One friend kept all tips, as the business owner, for herself as her staff were pa
Re: (Score:2)
Even better, I try to shop at companies that treat their employees well. But, sadly, those companies are increasingly hard to find.
Re: (Score:2)
If you read the article, Amazon says this is over tips for drivers they considered independent contractors that they say they paid out three years ago under a settlement with the FTC. So it is apparently no a new issue.
(And the tipping rules you mention only apply to employees. If these drivers are, in fact, independent contractors, those rules don't apply. Also, those are federal rules. Different jurisdictions have different, more restrictive rules. California, for instance, does not have a separate, lower
Re: (Score:2)
If you read the article, Amazon says this is over tips for drivers they considered independent contractors that they say they paid out three years ago under a settlement with the FTC. So it is apparently no a new issue.
(And the tipping rules you mention only apply to employees. If these drivers are, in fact, independent contractors, those rules don't apply. Also, those are federal rules. Different jurisdictions have different, more restrictive rules. California, for instance, does not have a separate, lower minimum wage for tipped employees. DC's minimum is $5.35. This, however, is federal.)
And yet these geniuses advertised that 100% of the tips were going to the drivers leading customers to believe that this was in addition to their base pay. Just because Amazon considers something to be a certain way does not mean this is the last word on the matter. They found that out when they got hit by the Federal Trade Commission like an elbow from the sky. Now they are finding out that in the US American justice system settling with the Federal Trade Commission does not guarantee that you won't be sue
Re: (Score:2)
I was just pointing out that the person I replied to was wrong about how the minimum wage vs tipping works, and even more wrong about this being about that in the first place.
You may now ejaculate all over your monitor while you type out yet another screed that has nothing to do with what you're replying to.
And you know you will, wanker.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good point. The government is happy to consider tips as normal income for the purpose of:
1. Making minimum wage
2. Taxable income
Waitress tips are self-report. Since this goes through computers, is it auto-taxed by software?
A = Wage (and charge for ride)
B = tip, you kind person!
Tax(A + B)
Minimum wage check (A + B)
Where is the deception? Some imagined invisible line or box pretending to present the tip to the driver with a ribbon? They get that!
Re: (Score:2)
This assumes A, the wage, comes 100% from the ride share fee, and not tip.
Re: (Score:2)
If I were a customer, I would state that your "friend" was stealing from me. I gave that money to the employee(s) I interacted with, not the business. If you want to keep them, make sure there is a sign on the jar that says "Extra money to business owner", "Voluntary overcharge" or "Fund to continue to underpay workers" instead of "Tips".
That was MY money I was trying to give your employee directly, if you take it you are stealing from ME before it gets to who I gave it to. It's outright theft, your friend
Re: (Score:3)
Some are attached to tips as they think it gives them rights. Like if the staff complains of me molesting them then they wonâ(TM)t get a tip.
I donâ(TM)t like tips. I like cultures where the staff is paid and tips, if any, are just a nomin
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the tips are shared among the people I interacted with - The wait staff, the cook who made my food, the bartender who poured my drink, the busboy and dishwasher that cleaned up after me.
In no condition, in no way, in no form is the owner entitled to tips. The owner is the only one who can guarantee their own profit by setting the prices, the employees are at the mercy of the employer and the customer for their own money. When the owner steals it, there is no excuse. It is outright theft, and they shoul
Re: (Score:2)
Employers tend to be in the wrong with tips in the spirit of the law, it not legally, which is why so many give tips in cash directly to the person. One friend kept all tips, as the business owner, for herself as her staff were paid minimum wage. Legal, but customers likely thought they were tipping the grunts.
What a scummy practice and scummy person...
Cash tips (Score:5, Interesting)
How do you even tip delivery folks? (Score:2)
The drive up, toss the box on the porch, snap a photo, hop back in their vehicle, and drive off.
Re: (Score:2)
everyone talking about wage theft and big evil corporations and im left wondering, who tf is tipping their delivery drivers? ive never even seen mine and assumed it was someone different on any given day.
A good reason not to guve up on cash (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"And if they don't report ( some of ) it as income, that's their business."
It's also my business, because they are not paying taxes on it and it's not going into Social Security etc. I know people who made well over $10/hr 20 years ago at mediocre restaurants. For many waiters it's not the taxes that are their income problem, it's poor spending habits. Not reporting tips is simply a way to dodge taxes because "everybody's doing it"; it's normalized in their culture. No one should have to rely on "tips"
Re: (Score:2)
It should be left up to the individual to decide if they want to report it or not.
But, only if they understand that consequences of those actions. If you don't declare it, and don't pay taxes, especially the FICA/Social Security tax, then don't expect to get a monthly check from the gov't when you get old. (Granted there are a bunch of wealthy f*cktards that want to get rid of that safety net so who knows if it will be there even if you do pay in)
Give Cash (Score:2)
Criminal! (Score:2)
Seems to me this warrants a criminal investigation ending with prison time for those responsible. No corporation will do the right thing until those running it are deprived of their freedom for crimes.
Re: (Score:3)
You are 100% correct; tipping for normal service is a terrible idea and we should get rid of it.
Unfortunately, since it's legal in most states to pay people less than minimum wage, we're stuck with tipping for now.
Re:Tipping is a terrible idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Workers and employers negotiate a salary. I pay the employer for the work or service done. Everything is a fair and open transaction. Everyone has reasonably equal negotiating power..
Nope. Not even close. Everything is skewed so heavily toward business, with bigger being better.
Have you tried hiring a plumber or an electrician? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Workers and employers negotiate a salary.
Everyone has reasonably equal negotiating power.
Am I missing something about the rest of your post that demonstrates some sarcasm in these two statements? I agree that tipping is bad, but removing it from the equation won't make either of those things even remotely true for almost any of the jobs that currently utilize it.
Re: (Score:2)
This entire idea of tipping makes it almost impossible for workers to know their salary.
On the contrary: a tip has nothing whatsoever to do with salary. Salary is paid by an employer to an employee in consideration of the work the employee does for the employer. A tip is given by a customer directly to the employee in appreciative thanks for good or outstanding service. It is none of the employer's business.
Re: (Score:3)
Everything is a fair and open transaction. Everyone has reasonably equal negotiating power.
*cough* A smal correction. Every time it happens that negotiations between employers and employees start to be fair for both sides and especially when employees start to have the same bargaining power, someone at the top of the chain launches a coup d'état or a dictatorship to return the things to what they were before.
Re: (Score:2)
What's going on with all the credit card POS tip prompts lately at fast food restaurants? "Tip? 10% 20% 30% 50% Other" Do these tips actually go to the employees or is it just extra money you're paying the company?
There's no way to tell for sure. I ask the staff and in Europe in most, but not all, places they say that they get the money. Who gets it varies from place to place. Sometimes it's straight to your server. Sometimes all the staff like the chefs share it too.
Re: (Score:2)
Because tipped employees are taxes on their final tip income (and there are separate tax filings for that), they do have to be itemized and delivered. The restaurant can't just put it in the general fund.
Now if the restaurant has a 'tips are also shared with kitchen staff or bartenders' - some do, some don't, that's between the employees and the restaurant.