<Wait staff in other countries provide fine service without the US's bizarre tipping culture.>
Uhhh...
I have had good service in Europe; I have also had shockingly bad service, and saw a waiter in Cologne tell a man who complained about waiting 15 minutes for a menu "You don't like it? Go to McDonald's!"

Of course this is anecdotal and my opinion only (and we all know what that's worth) but I think American tipping culture produces better service on the whole. I don't defend it as fair, or sane, but effective? Yes.

I also think that $15/hr is chump change at Lobster Shack, to say nothing of fancier establishments.

Undoing an ingrained cultural habit is going to be tough...

And also:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/di...ng-policy.html

<And FWIW, I find the idea that a server would have no incentive to provide good service without tips offensive. There's plenty of research showing that people prefer to do their jobs well, regardless of how much (or little) they are paid for doing so. >

This is a total mischaracterization--misunderstanding, probably--of the way financial incentives work.

@ NewbE -- I would suggest that the use of tips to attempt to sway the behavior of servers is at least as likely to be a misapplication of the ways in which financial incentives work, as a mischaracterization of the way in which they work.

In general, financial incentives work only when they provide incentives that are above and beyond that provided by other incentives and when they are both sufficient to, and capable of, producing a change in behavior. For many servers, doing a good job -- and for that matter, keeping a job -- are more than enough to provide excellent service. In contrast, financial incentives typically undermine other reasons for doing the things to which those incentives apply -- so, for example, they tend to transform a sense of doing a job well for the sake of doing it well to a sense of doing it only if it pays well.

You might want to read up a bit on the research on motivation.....

OK, I'll play!

Let's consider executive bonuses, or any bonus structure, for that matter. Every company I have ever worked for had one. It went like this:
X are the requirements of your job
Y are the things you can do to get a bonus
Why would I do those extra things? For the money. Would I do them anyway? Maybe, but the company would rather be sure I will.

Now let's say I'm a waitress. The requirements of my job, when met, yield a minuscule wage; in the US, assuming I do a decent job, I can expect tips of 10% (or 15%, this is just an example) of my checks. But if I do extra things to make my customers enjoy their meals, I can expect tips of 20% (or more) of my checks.

I therefore refill water glasses before I am asked to. I circulate to keep an eye on my tables and so customers can see me to flag me down. I pick up my dishes from the kitchen and deliver them promptly. And so on.

Could I do less and keep my job? Sure. Would I do these things anyway? Maybe, but the expectation of a bigger tip makes it more of a certainty.

"Why would I do those extra things? For the money"

That's where you went wrong, NewbE. And that's where MANY businesses go wrong. Reducing everything to money is a mistake and can actually reduce the motivation of staff who would otherwise work their proverbial butts off -- at whatever level in an organization.

kja, I appreciate these wonderful thoughts you express. How great if it were true that in the US today (and other places as well) most employees work hard because it gives them a feeling of well being. Or that earning more money is not really a reason to work even harder. But I honestly believe that it is much more a "theory" than reality. I know of only one or two people who would continue with their current jobs, no matter how happy they are working there, if their salaries were cut. They honestly do NOT work for their pride for the company they work for or because doing a good job gives them a nice warm fuzzy glow. They work to earn money, and their happiness is directly proportionate to the amount of money they earn.

I'm betting my next tip that kja doesn't own a business.

I am probably going to get flamed for saying this, but reducing everything to money is very American.

thursdaysd, I'm not sure why you say "reducing EVERYTHING to money" -- as there are more considerations here. But to suggest that money isn't an important motivator in the workplace in China, or Great Britain, or Germany, or Japan, or just about anywhere you can think of is just plain naive.

The idea that waitstaff will only do the bare minimum to keep their job if they didn't get tips doesn't make a lot of sense. If that is the case, does it follow that employees in the many jobs that don't involve tips only do the bare minimum necessary to keep their jobs? No one takes pride in doing their job well unless they will be getting extra money?

Meyer seems aware that his staff isn't only working for the pride of doing a good job:

Meyer’s experiment is expected to begin in November at The Modern, his fine-dining restaurant at the Museum of Modern Art, and for the first 90 days he has guaranteed that “nobody will make a penny less than they would have made had we kept tipping at a full 21 percent level.”

http://nrn.com/people/danny-meyer-we...t-leaders-here

And that there will be financial incentive for both the front and back of the house to provide good service. Also, patrons will have the opportunity to rate service and food with a star system.

Servers will be paid a guaranteed base wage of $9 an hour, plus a payout from a profit-sharing program that also extends to back-of-the-house employees. Servers in USHG restaurants are currently paid a base wage of $5 an hour.....The profit-sharing program will divide a portion of sales among nonservers in roughly the same way that gratuities have been tipped out in the past.

http://www.restaurantbusinessonline....eliminate-tips

I think it's interesting idea and hope it's a successful one.

"If that is the case, does it follow that employees in the many jobs that don't involve tips only do the bare minimum necessary to keep their jobs?"

ummmm. Yes. I honestly believe that the bulk of workers only do what is required of them. It's nice tom42, that you and others believe workers go out of their way to do a great job -- without regard to getting paid for the extra work. Sure there are a few of those around, but I sincerely doubt that in today's workplace that is the "norm" -- by a long shot.

Many CEO's get high salaries and bonuses regardless of the performance of the company. In fact many cut staffs in order to improve profits, even if it effects the running of the company.

Using the logic that money equals caring, it implies that chefs would do a terrible job because they are not motivated by tips.

Tom Colicchio says that it will improve lunch service since the better servers want to work dinner when the prices are higher, thus the tips.

One would hope that management would hire, TRAIN, and monitor the servers.

This is all not to say that outstanding servers could get a bonus or higher base pay.

This is a new concept in America and of course, there will be all sorts of problems at first. And like anything new or old, there will be those who want to be obstructionists and those who will try and make it work.

< If that is the case, does it follow that employees in the many jobs that don't involve tips only do the bare minimum necessary to keep their jobs? No one takes pride in doing their job well unless they will be getting extra money?>

No, that doesn't follow, because in a country where everyone tips 15-20%, a tip isn't really extra money, it's the base pay. A tip over 20% is the extra money.

People take pride in doing a god job everywhere, every day--that's human. But they will look for a different job if they aren't paid enough (whatever "enough" means, in each individual's estimation), because pride doesn't pay the bills or feed the kids.

In response to kja, the problem with your argument, IMO, is that you seem to see it as all or nothing: give bonuses (or tips), thereby reducing "everything" to money and decreasing motivation; or do various other things to motivate employees to do good work (which I won't go into, but which I know include positive reenforcement, fostering communication, helping employees feel like stakeholders, etc., etc.).

Every company I've ever worked for did both. Saying that money isn't the only answer is a straw man argument.

>

No one said they wouldn't. Just like any job. If you aren't happy with the pay, you would look for another job.

tom42, actually, you implied that instead of looking for another job a worker would simply do "the bare minimum", adjusting his effort down in response to lower pay. That's what I was disagreeing with.

I hope this gets by Fodor's mods, and no hard feelings if it doesn't.

A friend commented this morning: "Do away with tipping? There goes my sex life."

>

I think you are mistaking me for NeoPatrick. He's the one who says that the bulk of workers do only the minimum amount required. I was disagreeing with that because it is much more complex than how Neo thinks about it - there are many reasons why an employee might want to do a good job and not just the bare minimum, regardless of additional immediate financial reward. But yes, I agree with you that if the job isn't paying a salary which the employee finds acceptable, the employee will likely look for another job.