if you do go to an establishment that pays based on the assumption of tips
In the USA, there are only 7 US States (and Guam) which mandate that the minimum wage be paid prior to consideration of tips. All other states permit some fraction of tips to be considered as part of minimum wage, with some states limiting the employer contribution to as low as $2.13/hr.
This is indeed an absurd situation outside of those seven states, but it also means that it’s nigh impossible to avoid establishments that rely on tips to supplement wages, in the other 43 states.
With this background, I can understand why the earlier commenter views tipping as exploitative, for both the consumer and the staff. The result of either choice – boycotting places that pay less than minimum wage, or not tipping at those places – doesn’t change the fact that the staff are being underpaid, which is the root exploitative practice.
The result of either choice – boycotting places that pay less than minimum wage, or not tipping at those places – doesn’t change the fact that the staff are being underpaid, which is the root exploitative practice.
Yes, but boycotting those places is justifiable. Going anyway and just not tipping is actively participating in the exploitation.
agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 2 hours ago
No, they cannot. Disagreement here is not reasoned, it is just another example of clever people using their cleverness to justify unreasonable prior beliefs.
You can boycott a business, and write them to express that your boycott is based on their tipping policy. That would be a reasonable strategy to support the workers.
By still giving the business owners money, knowing they pay their staff sub-minimum wages based on the convention of tipping, and then not tipping, you have not communicated any disapproval to management. You have in fact directly supported the business owner exploiting their workers, and joined that exploitation for personal benefit. That’s the opposite of supporting the worker.