In any situation where the following benefits accrue
A: 80
B: 80
C: 80
A would logically prefer a situation where the following benefits accrue even with total outcomes being on average worse because A is logically and understandably primarily interested in their own well being.
A: 100
B: 50
C: 50
Tips are better for the employer because they fan advertise a price n where the customer will be expected to pay n+10-25%
Pooled tips are better on average because the extra tax the employer is able to levy accrues to everyone. Non pooled tips are better for attractive people or those who are much more competent than their peers.
No tips and actually paying employees what they are worth is even better.
>No tips and actually paying employees what they are worth is even better.
There's plenty of resistance from the servers themselves, though. Whenever this subject comes up on kitchen-pros related subreddits, IIRC this just came up not too long ago (/r/kitchenconfidentials, I think?) servers don't want to take straight wages over tips. I always think qualifiers like "better" doesn't mean better for everyone. Some servers make so much in tips, or think they can exceed their straight wages in tips, that they believe the current system favors them. Much like the majority of SWEs on HN are vociferously resistant to the idea of a SWE union.
A: 80 B: 80 C: 80
A would logically prefer a situation where the following benefits accrue even with total outcomes being on average worse because A is logically and understandably primarily interested in their own well being.
A: 100 B: 50 C: 50
Tips are better for the employer because they fan advertise a price n where the customer will be expected to pay n+10-25%
Pooled tips are better on average because the extra tax the employer is able to levy accrues to everyone. Non pooled tips are better for attractive people or those who are much more competent than their peers.
No tips and actually paying employees what they are worth is even better.