The waitress's own accounting of the incident is exceptionally self serving and false. The signature as originally posted was quite legible. Her original accounting of the incident was completely fabricated because she didn't actually serve the table, though she represented herself as if she did.
For example, the customer's name, Alois, is a man's name, but the customer was actually a female with a male's first name. The waitress asserted that the customer was a man. When she later found out she was wrong she backpeddled and claimed she knew that but that she was protecting the customer's identity. However she publicly posted the customer's name and location, enabling people to track down the customer and begin threatening her.
Another detail she got wrong was claiming the customer left no tip. The customer left the tip as cash on the table, as most people in the US do, and something that most servers prefer, rather than pay it as part of the bill. The restaurant also though double charged the customer for the tip, meaning the customer ended up paying 36% rather than 18% on the bill as tip. Because the waitress had not served the table she assumed that the strike out of the tip line meant the customer left no tip at all.
In short, the waitress violated a customer's privacy, lied about the customer publicly defaming her, publicly ridiculed her religious beliefs, and instigated an internet mob riot against the customer which continues to this day in the form of threats and harassment and has caused the customer severe mental anguish. If I was an attorney in the area I would be preparing a large lawsuit against the restaurant at this time, and I would certainly prevail in court.
Her firing was completely justified and her complaining about being fired in the media and claiming herself as victim when she was the bully is absolutely outrageous.
You're forgetting the smoking gun: The customer actually wrote "I give god 10%, why do you get 18" on the receipt.
There's no way around the physical evidence. Internet judgement has convicted the customer of class-A asshattery and sentenced her/him to public ridicule. The waitress is going to come across as a hero in this story no matter what bureaucratic rule she broke.
Any sane business owned and run by humans would have had a good laugh and ignored the whiny customer. Instead we have an example of what happens when you try to formalize every decision from how the steaks are cooked to how to respond to customer complaints. Protip: If your company responds to crises like this, it's long past time to get the hell out.
I ate at an Applebees recently. It was exactly the kind of soulless microwaved food I would expect from a nationwide, lowest-common-denominator corporate chain. This story does not surprise me one bit.
I don't think the waitress is a hero. She violated a person's privacy. The waitress already received the automatic 18% tip. What is her beef? She didn't like one comment on a receipt? How many tables did she wait on that night? 6-10?
This story is not about the waitress. This story is about a pastor caught red-handed being an self-absorbed asshat, followed by the inept flailing of an incompetent bureaucracy.
Against this kind of backdrop, the waitress would have to kick puppies in order to look unsympathetic.
Are you sure? If she paid with a credit card and there is the automatic 18%, what processes deducts the automatic tip? It wouldn't have mattered that she crossed out that printed 6.29.
I personally don't get whole this tip tradition - just give me the check stating the exact amount I have to pay. And give the appropriate salary to the wait{er|ress}.
I find the power imbalance in these situations to be very uncomfortable -- half the time in the back of my mind I'm thinking to myself this waitress has a big smile on her face because ultimately all she wants is a nice tip; the smiley front is unauthentic. Just please give the servers and waiters a proper salary and let me go on with my day.
The very idea of tipping to me is absurd and silly. What constitutes that a service be tipped anyway? Doesn't the guy who spends 30 minutes explaining to me how I should install my bathroom tiles at Home Depot deserve a tip? Or the cooks in the backhouse -- who, arguably, have much difficult work to do than servers/waiters? The immigrant dishwashers who never even get a chance to have their common dignity affirmed at any step of the way -- because they're not palatable enough in their looks and appearances to be seen by a customer? Or the Sears cashier clerk who does me the favour of looking in the back warehouse to see if the shoes I'm looking for are really not in stock -- and then calls other stores to see if they have them, when he didn't have to do any of that?
Just give them a nice salary. Don't try to guilt-trip me by bringing up how they're paid "below minimum wage".
And, to put a startup spin on my post: there should be a site that rates the ethical practices of stores/restaurants. Does the restaurant pay its dishwashers a respectable salary? If yes, I will be okay and willing to pay a little extra. If they don't: I'll happily never do business there again.
Even crazier is I've eaten at a number of places where the tips all get evenly distributed among the staff at the end of the night - so what the hell was the point of the tip? As someone who is new to North American culture the whole tipping thing is a nightmare.
As an outsider this is my theory:
The reason is to quote as low as a number as possible to make people feel this is cheap. And one place can't start "doing the right thing" and paying a decent salary because they would be perceived more expensive and they would also upset people who are used to the status quo.
I also find it ridiculous that the sales tax is not included in the price written on the sticker in the stores in the US.
But again, I guess quoting a lower price and charging more when the customer has already made up their mind is better for the business.
Tips exist because they are a way for the customer to give a good server some money directly.
Unless there was a cast-iron legal guarantee that the money from the "automatic" tip goes direct to all low-paid staff (servers and chefs), then I want to be able to give my money to the server direct.
> Tips exist because they are a way for the customer to give a good server some money directly.
That is silly. Why is waiter work so unique that it's one of the very few that requires this kind of payment? If you want to pay money directly, you can do that for cashier clerks at gas stations, clothing stores, auto service men, middlemen of all sorts in business offices, etc. etc. Why not pay them directly too then?
What I'm arguing is that the tradition of tipping is something that should not be. I would be okay with tipping in the most extraordinary of circumstances, where the worker clearly goes out of his way to provide unexpectedly superb service, but it should not be seen as necessary in other normal situations; I don't see a really good reason why it has to be any different from other jobs.
As another commenter in this thread from Sweden pointed out: it works for them. The norm is that waiters are not tipped. It seems to be working okay for them, let it work in America too.
Maybe you've never been able to compare a society where tipping is normal with one where it isn't?
I grew up in the USA (tipping) but have lived in Australia for the past four years (no tipping). Restaurant service is horrendous in Australia except at the most expensive restaurants. Food is often brought out at different times for different people in your party. It's not uncommon to go out for office lunch and 1 or 2 people will be waiting for their food after everyone else has finished.
You also can't get your server to do much except take your order and bring you your food. He/she forgot something? You tell them, 10 minutes later you still don't have what they forgot. Need a refill of water, same story. There is just so much more friction to the experience of dining out.
Counter point:
Japan and Korea as I remember did not having a tipping system and yet services are great.
If you have an issue with your server you complain to the restaurant so the bad waiters get fired.
I don't understand why as a culture Australia would tolerate such behavior in servers who's job is serving. (Would you tolerate translators who couldn't translate? programmers who couldn't program?)
A counter point: in Sweden, where I live, tipping is optional. Many people tip 5-10% if they are satisfied, but service staff are not dependent on tips.
While service can be impersonal, it is usually without the kind of faults you point out. You can generally count on correct service.
> I personally don't get whole this tip tradition ...
It's a holdover from a class-conscious society in which waiters and waitresses belonged to a different, less privileged class, deserving of gratuities from a more privileged class.
All that has changed is the gratuities aren't gratuitous any more.
> ... just give me the check stating the exact amount I have to pay.
That would require restaurants to pay the staff a living wage, and raise published menu prices to agree with reality (i.e. including tips).
I've had terrible service & I've had great service. While I've never completely stiffed a waiter, I have left a tip on the low-end (10-15%). And I've left killer tips (>50%) on some really killer service.
By and large, the system seems to work pretty well. And once you know to accodate it, it's not really that hard to do the math & account for it.
I guess you could think of it as implicitly outsourcing the performance evaluations and bonus assignment to the customer, who, after all, in the best position to make that decision. That's the theory, I guess. In reality though people aren't particularly objective, and also the social norm is to apply some percentage to the bill; so effectively, the waitrons get paid partly based on how expensive the food is that they served (which just highlights part of the absurdity).
Look at it from the other side, Applebee's has to
protect their brand. They can't have waitresses posting information about customers online. That is why she was fired.
I was immediately shocked by the waitresses' behavior. That one comment set you off that you had to violate your customer's privacy?
Also, I wonder if some media outlets are rightly masking the customer's personal information but I saw some posts with the fullname in the image.
How did you get all of these details? I would assume that some are in dispute -- e.g. the tip left on the table (how would we know unless both sides confirmed?).
It doesn't even matter what the original thing was about. The way it was handled by the restaurant's PR team is what turned this small sub-reddit topic to a social media nightmare.
In one single night, that PR person, probably drove away tends of thousands (if not more) of customers. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong at that point, them not catching which side the public was on, and just arguing back and forth, is what turned this into a train wreck.
My point was it doesn't matter at this stage. It already happened. Time to deal with it. This kind of stuff happens all the time probably and it shows up in local paper at most, or in some /r/wtf sub-reddit.
Regardless of what side you are on, you can't deny that the restaurant lost a considerable amount of business in just a couple of days. That should be a fire-able offense.
"In one single night, that PR person, probably drove away tends of thousands (if not more) of customers"
How did you get to that conclusion?
Based on anecdotal evidence from the past, I tend to think very few people (outside of the HN/Reddit crowd) follow this type of news, and of those who do, almost no one cares enough to actually change their behavior.
I am surprised that everyone saw this from one side. I was making an argument that the "pastor" has received a lot of undue criticism all because she made ONE comment on a receipt after ONE meal. Now, her small 15 person church is receiving a bunch of scrutiny and being mocked...from papers across the globe. If the "waitress" did not POST the picture on the Internet then the pastor would have been left alone. Is it possible the waitress overreacted to the customer's one comment on tips?
It has been a while since I waited tables but we were always happy and respectable to all guests, we didn't worry about a person NOT giving tips. We were just glad for the visit. Did it ever matter? It is all about the averages, you may get a good tip at one table and a bad tip at another. You never disrespect the customer by trying to insult them online.
On religion and her being a pastor (of a 15 member church). Why should we expect rational, conscientious behavior from some random pastor? The world is shocked that she didn't want to give a tip and then made a reference a God while doing so. It is religion, I don't expect thought-out, kind behavior from religious people. Why should we? They are just people and are going to make these kind of snide comments just like anyone else.
"In light of the situation, I would like to make a statement on behalf of wait staff everywhere: We make $3.50 an hour. Most of my paychecks are less than pocket change because I have to pay taxes on the tips I make."
She knows that if you make less than the non-server minimum wage then the company is supposed to pay you the rest of the wages to meet the minimum wage rate. So, they don't entirely make less than the federal minimum wage rate. And I was a waiter, a lot of people didn't report ALL the tips that they earned to avoid the taxes. Should we make sure she is being accurate in her tax reporting?
> Why should we expect rational, conscientious behavior from some random pastor?
Because the attitude is (like it or not) Christians are better, they are saved, and they go the extra mile to show that charity, giving, and compassion are their main attributes. When a pastor writes that stuff on the check, it comes out as very hypocritical to most people in this country.
This includes both Christians who are outraged because "she is doesn't represent us" and also atheists who see this as an example of hypocrisy.
>She knows that if you make less than the non-server minimum wage then the company is supposed to pay you the rest of the wages to meet the minimum wage rate.
Umm....and the federal minimum wage is sub-poverty-level for a family of two or more in the US, or just barely above the poverty line if you're living alone. [1] I know a lot of wait-staff who are single parents that are really stretching every dollar to get by, and that $7.25/hour is a pathetic level of pay to try to support a family on, so I can't really see how "they always make at least minimum wage!" is a valid argument.
> On religion and her being a pastor (of a 15 member church). Why should we expect rational, conscientious behavior from some random pastor? The world is shocked that she didn't want to give a tip and then made a reference a God while doing so. It is religion, I don't expect thought-out, kind behavior from religious people. Why should we? They are just people and are going to make these kind of snide comments just like anyone else.
Er. Historically, clergy are expected to be the voices of reason, neutral third parties for arbitration and trust purposes, and also minor authorities at minimum. It's a stereotype. That doesn't mean it disappeared because you aren't religious.
Maybe people should be more careful about what to post online, especially things that could reveal personal identities without the person's permission.
In this case the customer's signature is partially visible, which is not only considered personal but can potentially also be forged to sign for credit card receipts and legal documents.
Sure the life of a waitress is not easy but from the perspective of the restaurant owner, I think the firing was justified. If she disagrees, she can always sue for wrongful termination and let the court decide (which will cost her money that potentially cannot be recovered should she lose).
You're kidding, right? How could anyone possibly get any identifying information from a few squiggles at the edge of a photo--much less enough to perpetrate identity theft?
The point is not whether enough identifying information could be obtained this time, but rather the fact that she (arguably) did not really consider that when posting the image, and that she could do it again (and this time reveal enough identifying information). Had she tilted the camera a bit further down the whole signature would've been visible.
Imagine an employee in a company accidentally leaks some user data, which does not really contain personally identifying information. I don't think it's completely unjustifiable to fire this person even though no damage was done.
Of course the owners of the restaurant could've dealt with the situation a lot nicer (warning her about the potential danger instead of firing her). But I don't blame them for taking the more drastic measure that they did (not saying that I would've done the same).
This is exactly why Applebee's fired the waitress. She wasn't fired because the customer called the store. She was fired because she was the catalyst for all of this bad publicity.
As a general rule, restaurant managers at these chain stores have to respect the brand. According to Applebee's:
"Employees must honor the privacy rights of APPLEBEE’s and its employees by seeking permission before writing about or displaying internal APPLEBEE'S happenings that might be "
considered to be a breach of privacy and confidentiality..."
She was fired for breaching the the customer's privacy. And you don't normally do that (putting information online) because this kind of shitstorm can happen. They are probably sending a message to other employees, don't pull this kind of stuff or you lose your job. Now look at the shitstorm we have to deal with.
If she hadn't been fired, this whole thing would have been one obscure post on reddit and an outraged customer - this kind of thing happens all the time.
If there's any lesson for would-be entrepreneurs, it's about how to handle public opinion.
At this stage it really doesn't matter who was right and who was wrong (it seems clear to me both parties played a part), but Applebee's handling of this whole mess has been a study of what not to do.
A PC train wreck indeed. It doesn't even matter what the original thing was about, this will be entered into the text books as a classic 'social media: what not to do' lesson.
If anyone should be fired it is the persons making the decisions and handling this response. You can see them digging their own grave deeper deeper with every new statement.
I'm not sure how many of the restaurant's customers will actually boycott though. People are quite fickle and you'll see many claiming boycott just to get some attention. Besides, I'm not sure just how many of its customers even know about its facebook page, let alone this incident.
The person who wrote the note came across an article about it, called the Applebee’s location, and demanded everyone be fired — me, the server who allowed me to take the picture, the manager on duty at the time, the manager not on duty at the time, everyone. It seems I was fired not because Applebee’s was represented poorly, not because I did anything illegal or against company policy, but because I embarrassed this person.
Incredible. How much money does this customer want to stiff this waitress out of? Isn't paying nothing on a mandatory tip bad enough?
The 18% tip was already billed to the customer, so they ended up paying the automatic 18% tip (even though they crossed it out) in addition to a $6 cash tip they left on the table. The receipt was for about $40, if I recall correctly.
While I wholeheartedly agree that the actions of the customer are absurd, I would like to point out that in the US, courts have held that a tip is not "mandatory."
Restraunts should just charge the amount that is needed to pay their waitstaff properly, instead of relying on a tip and make their prices look cheaper! A tip is supposed to be extra money given the the waitstaff for services above and beyond the call of duty.
At least for me. Waiting was the easiest job with the most reward for the least amount of work. Tax free in some cases because it was cash.
Our job was to essentially walk from one side of the restaurant to the other side of the restaurant and meet drunk hot chicks. And they give you typically 10-30 dollars cash for doing so.
Hard work is standing behind a hot grill for $5-8 a hour, 10 hours a day without the tips.
That's fine in an ideal world, but in the United States that's not how eating out is handled. A tip is the payment to the waitress for her services while occupying a chair in her or his section in the restaurant. If you find this unacceptable, there are McDonalds Restaurants down most streets.
Except, in this case, the person actually paid the 18% tip directly to the serving person, and didn't want the restaurant taking an additional "service fee".
"Another detail she got wrong was claiming the customer left no tip. The customer left the tip as cash on the table, as most people in the US do, and something that most servers prefer, rather than pay it as part of the bill. "
The tip in question was really a service charge for serving larger groups. While leaving a tip is not mandatory, businesses have a lot more leeway in adding on extra fees and whatnot, especially if it is already outlined somewhere (e.g. on the menu).
That being said, making it a mandatory charge usually means that it's separate from being considered a tip for tax purposes.
Apparently there have been high level court cases about this (last discussion had a guy posting the case). The 18% extra if portrayed as a "automatic gratuity" is not technically legally required.
It was some case about people getting arrested for theft for refusing to pay.
"It seems I was fired not because Applebee’s was represented poorly..."
Actually, that is probably why she was fired. Saying something publicly about a customer, especially in a way that could look bad for the customer, does not reflect well on the restaurant.
If you interact with customers, it's your job at risk. The customer is sometimes, but often not, risking much by being rude in one way or another. Is it fair? Maybe not. But that's unlikely to be a productive discussion.
In a TSG interview, Alois Bell said that the online
firestorm created by the receipt has left her stunned.
“My heart is really broken,” said the 37-year-old Bell.
“I’ve brought embarrassment to my church and ministry.”
Our pastor showed this picture in church this morning. Didn't really get the back story and some things still don't add up:
The picture on Reddit (linked to from this link) is cropped. I seem to remember seeing the entire receipt.
Usually tips are only added automatically for large parties (>= 8) but this bill was only $34. Makes no sense. Was this just 8 people getting iced teas?
I've always thought that the idea of a gratuity as a requirement is just a scapegoat for employers not wanting to pay their employees for the effort they put in.
I've never understood why I have to tip a waiter, a pizza delivery guy, or a grocery bagger, but not the guy that changes my oil.
When I lived in Mexico, grocery stores had bag boys and they were all under 12 years old. Those kids weren't employed by the store, they were allowed to work there for tips only. That's the only pay they received. I always tipped those boys well, but it shows how the gratuity can be abused.
It is a perfectly fine system but apparently in America, you have to leave a 20% tip under all circumstances. If the service is bad, who cares, leave the 20% or you are an asshole and we will post your information online.
> God help you if you are caught not leaving a tip.
True. In the old days, when a tip was a gratuity (the original meaning of the word), it was by definition optional. So it could be used to reward good service or punish bad. Some people objected that tipping was undemocratic -- it allowed wealthy people to get better service in an establishment with fixed menu prices.
Now that tipping is mandatory, the original meaning "gratuity" is lost, because it's not gratuitous (optional or unearned). Now the objection is that it's neither optional nor a signaling mechanism, but a way to raise prices across the board without actually saying to.
Both views are right -- when it was optional, it was undemocratic, and now that it's mandatory, it's an underhanded way to raise prices for everyone.
I thought the point was that if you received poor service you left only 10%, and for dire service you leave 0%, but better be prepared to back that up verbally.
That may be the case, but refusing to tip is only going to hurt the people who are not making that call. Not the employer, but the underpaid employees. When you fail to tip a waitress, you are not making a social statement that is heard by anybody.
I don't think anyone's claiming the opposite. I have a sister-in-law that was a waitress for many years, so I've heard lots of stories. It's a crock for them because they RELY on the tips as their wage. Since it's really their wage, why not just pay them the wage in the first place? Alas, I don't think it will change unless it's legislated.
The term is a generic one, not specific to Mormonism. According to the Wikipedia article[1] (albeit from an uncited source), there are references to it from the year 567.
Mormons are the best known example of it, but many Baptist, Pentecostal and Brethren churches do the same thing. In all of those cases, where it happens, I believe that 10% is the standard figure.
The word tithe means tenth, and it is the biblical standard of giving - a tenth of your income. However, it's not related at all to tipping a waitress a portion of your dinner bill.
Religious people that write things like that prefer rhetoric to reason. It's in the same class of statements as "no monkey in my family tree." Sounds like you've made a point but you have only made a sentence.
How did Mormons come into this discussion? To tithe means to pay one tenth and always has. A "tithe" comes from the saxon "teoþa" which means "tenth". Plenty of sects tithe.
Mormons are only unique in this respect in just how seriously they take tithing and the lengths that they go to in order to ensure that it is being done properly. In most other Christian-based religions tithing is a more personal matter.
For example, the customer's name, Alois, is a man's name, but the customer was actually a female with a male's first name. The waitress asserted that the customer was a man. When she later found out she was wrong she backpeddled and claimed she knew that but that she was protecting the customer's identity. However she publicly posted the customer's name and location, enabling people to track down the customer and begin threatening her.
Another detail she got wrong was claiming the customer left no tip. The customer left the tip as cash on the table, as most people in the US do, and something that most servers prefer, rather than pay it as part of the bill. The restaurant also though double charged the customer for the tip, meaning the customer ended up paying 36% rather than 18% on the bill as tip. Because the waitress had not served the table she assumed that the strike out of the tip line meant the customer left no tip at all.
In short, the waitress violated a customer's privacy, lied about the customer publicly defaming her, publicly ridiculed her religious beliefs, and instigated an internet mob riot against the customer which continues to this day in the form of threats and harassment and has caused the customer severe mental anguish. If I was an attorney in the area I would be preparing a large lawsuit against the restaurant at this time, and I would certainly prevail in court.
Her firing was completely justified and her complaining about being fired in the media and claiming herself as victim when she was the bully is absolutely outrageous.