Who should pay the tip?

Quote: DRich

I think it is very common. My daughter worked at a chain restaurant when she was younger and the waitresses were expected to give a small part of their tips to the bartender for making the drinks they delivered to the tables. It was understood that the waitresses that didn't tip the bartenders got their drinks last and their customers would have to wait the longest.

Most bartenders that have barbacks tip them. At nicer restaurants the waiters tip out the water boys, bus boys, the food servers, the bartenders, and the somollier. I also understand that maitre'd may also get tipped for directing customers to specific waiters tables.

Tip outs? Of course tip outs are common! You want to get preference with the bartender, or at least keep your slot by keeping the order in which the drinks were requested.

You also do tip outs to the bus people. If your tables don't get cleaned off, then no new people can be sat there. Thus, you do not want the bus staff to ignore your section in favor of those who do better tip outs.

My understanding, and this is second-hand, is that sometimes tip outs to the bartender can be loosely based on how many times you actually had to get drinks in the bar that night. No drinks from the bar at all (that would be rare) no reason to tip out the bartender.

Quote: TigerWu

Oh my god, read this and tell me this woman isn't an entitled P.O.S. Especially that letter at the end that you're supposed to print out and hand to your server. That is a first class ticket to spitsville and terrible service.

http://www.mommyshorts.com/2011/06/5-strategies-for-servers-with-small-children-at-the-table.html

I linked to the same thing in my reply to 777 on Page 23...I had a less favorable opinion than you did about the woman who wrote it.

Quote: Joeman

I think some servers would get a kick out of this, but most would just (want to) hit you over the head with the clock,

And should, they're people, not playthings.

Quote: Mission146

Tip outs? Of course tip outs are common! You want to get preference with the bartender, or at least keep your slot by keeping the order in which the drinks were requested.

You also do tip outs to the bus people. If your tables don't get cleaned off, then no new people can be sat there. Thus, you do not want the bus staff to ignore your section in favor of those who do better tip outs.

My understanding, and this is second-hand, is that sometimes tip outs to the bartender can be loosely based on how many times you actually had to get drinks in the bar that night. No drinks from the bar at all (that would be rare) no reason to tip out the bartender.

At my mother's restaurant they tip out a fairly large percent which is mandatory and is taken from their total sales. I think it is like 2.5% to bartenders of total sales not just alcohol sales. There are others that get tipped out to. I want to say it it might by 5% of total sales. She told me a few months ago she had someone have a bill of like $70.70 and they left 70 at the table. She not only had to cover the .70 but she had to tip out the 5% too. She is a good waitress, there were just dead beats. I was quick to remind her of the pro athlete that tipped her $200 on a $100 bill earlier this year. I told her it probably all evens itself out.

For those of you who do not tip because of bad service, I hope you get the manager and complain. If I tip 0 then I get the manager, when I tip 30% I also get the manager to tell them about the great job. I have actuslly been given more free meals for compliments than complaints.

Quote: GWAE

[

At my mother's restaurant they tip out a fairly large percent which is mandatory and is taken from their total sales. I think it is like 2.5% to bartenders of total sales not just alcohol sales. There are others that get tipped out to. I want to say it it might by 5% of total sales. She told me a few months ago she had someone have a bill of like $70.70 and they left 70 at the table. She not only had to cover the .70 but she had to tip out the 5% too. She is a good waitress, there were just dead beats. I was quick to remind her of the pro athlete that tipped her $200 on a $100 bill earlier this year. I told her it probably all evens itself out.

For those of you who do not tip because of bad service, I hope you get the manager and complain. If I tip 0 then I get the manager, when I tip 30% I also get the manager to tell them about the great job. I have actuslly been given more free meals for compliments than complaints.

That's actually another good point in your first paragraph, and I'm really glad you brought it up. When someone does a full or partial stiff on the actual bill (paying less or none) it's often technically the server's responsibility to notice that and the server is on the hook for the amount of the check if it does not get paid in full or at all. That depends on the restaurant, but it's usually the mid-lower end independent or franchise places that would do that. Most huge corporations wouldn't, bad publicity. I'm not saying there aren't exceptions.

Anyway, if you're unhappy with the food it is best just to complain and try to get your check reduced. Shorting the payment rather than getting them to reduce the actual check doesn't hurt anyone except the server, whose fault it isn't, in many of these places. Like I said, if costs go up in any way it's not going to be the bottom line of the business that suffers for it, I can generally guarantee that much.

I also agree with the second part. Further, regardless of how genuine it is, going to restaurants is always better when the staff (which may even include management) is happy to see you walk through the door and treats you accordingly.

Actually, about staff being happy to see you if you are a regular. That goes back to my point about being a co-employer, of sorts. If you pay well and you treat those who are working for you well, then you will generally get the kind of service that your treatment of the people taking care of you warrants.

Also, if your favorite server's tables are all full and you have to get a person you haven't had, your usual server will usually stop by and say hi to you, maybe shake your hand, kind of as a subtle way of letting your current server know that you can count on these people for a strong tip if you treat them right.

Quote: rxwine

I would not have a problem with tipping if I got an itemized list of services I wanted.

- Was server pleasant = 2%
- Did server check back to see if you needed anything = 2%
- Did server get your order right or immediately correct it ASAP= 2%
____________________________________________________________________
6% (so far)

All I care about is that I eventually get my food and drink. Waiter, what's 2% of $400? :-)

$80, I think. ;)

Quote: Mission146

Quote: 777

I don't think it will be the case, because we are not China or other countries where "slave" labor is the norm.

Their is nothing wrong with profiting, but it comes with a social responsibility. Your statement implies that employers are greedy have no moral/social responsibility, and it certainly gives ZK the ammunition to demand change to the tipped compensation system.

Your first line made me chuckle sardonically, I apologize for saying so. I've seen some stuff that you wouldn't believe in what you might consider, 'Normal,' jobs. You would hear the job title and think, "Oh, that's just an above board thing, nothing shady should go on there," unfortunately, that notion would be completely wrong.

I very much like my current employer (LCB) and they treat me unbelievably well. Other than delivering newspapers and bartending, LCB is the only employer I've ever truly liked. I've seen shady business practices and employee mistreatment at every employer besides LCB, the bar and delivering newspapers when I was a kid. We're talking about, 'Slave-type,' work, employee mistreatment, hazardous conditions, shady customer treatment, outright illegal practices and God knows what else. I've got some stories you wouldn't believe. 'Small businesses,' such as individual franchisees can be just as bad (or worse) than big corporations, I've worked for both.

I've got grocery store and distribution center stories that would make you puke. I pretend none of it ever happened or I wouldn't be able to shop, you should hear some of them.

Employers often ARE greedy and often HAVE NO social responsibility. Again, I have had three employers, lifetime, where I think everything that happens is correct and moral. I work for/with a bunch of terrific people here. I'm very lucky.

Other employers do shady practices and only care about the bottom line. I say that if direct wages go up then prices wlll go up because I am not blind to these sorts of things. The bottom line is often a slave unto itself, trust me. That's why individual people need to step up and compensate servers fairly and otherwise treat employees at places well. We should tip when it is called for, we should clean up after ourselves as best we can and we should not be difficult or rude to non-tipped service employees for any reason whatsoever. I've been, 'Behind the scenes,' and most of these jobs are total crap shows.

Geez, man. Your attempt to equate few instances of your experiences and observations about employers' shady practice and their mistreatment of their employees in America to the slave labor in China and other countries is the sardonic laughter of the day, and it reminds of the cold war era where the KGB's propaganda machine of the formal Soviet Union portrayed America as hell because of few ghettos in America. IIRC, a WOV member's beloved Buffalo was one of the few ghettos cited by the Russian.



Yes, there are instances of bad bosses and employers mistreatment of their employees. Although I'm not aware of any abusive labor practices that can be equated to slave labor, but I can cite one very famous shady boss with shady business dealings and with history of mistreating his employees into this relevant tipping discussion. One of the bad bosses I'm want to point out to everyone is none other than the racist, rapist, sexist, scam artist and con man Trump, but I won't equate his mistreatments and shady business practices to slave labor because I don't want you and others to chuckle sardonically.

Quote: Romes

2) Reality is they're not, so don't be that guy trying to "show" the employer up by stiffing the worker. Tip...

Well you gave me an idea. I'll just go punch the boss in the nose.

Quote:

<sarcasm>So now I'd expect this thread to close, since we're all on the same page, right???<sarcasm>

Get real dude -- some threads won't end until the Universe ceases to exist. Maybe longer. : )

Quote: beachbumbabs

Mission. Fiancee? (at Melting Pot). Is this news I missed, or are you referring to your ex before the wedding? Mazeltov if applicable.

Also, full time LCB? Are we getting paid now for the modding? Or is this about the articles and such. Another mazeltov if you're able to just do the articles and make enough to live on.

Thanks!

1.) Yes, although I did not propose to her at Melting Pot, we were just there once. Not my ex-wife, my fiancee and I have been together for quite some time now.

2.) The articles, I write for basically all of our sites.

Quote: 777

Geez, man. Your attempt to equate few instances of your experiences and observations about employers' shady practice and their mistreatment of their employees in America to the slave labor in China and other countries is the sardonic laughter of the day, and it reminds of the cold war era where the KGB's propaganda machine of the formal Soviet Union portrayed America as hell because of few ghettos in America. IIRC, a WOV member's beloved Buffalo was one of the few ghettos cited by the Russian.

Not slave labor, per se, but to assume that most employers have any notion of social responsibility is erroneous.

I'm kind of hoping truth is a defense here, but when I worked at the Save Better, Live Money Distribution Center there was a water line break in the town in which the D.C. was located. I think it was a line break, either way, the D.C. had no running water.

Now, they claimed that there was no way to get any port-a-johns shipped to us because of a music festival taking place nearby, so any port-a-john companies were out of them. That could have been true.

The result was that signs were put on the restroom doors that said, "No Number 2," but as I am sure you would guess, the people that needed to go #2 were not inclined to heed the signs. As a result, there was no way to flush the toilets so management decided to close off the restrooms completely.

This should also be keeping in mind that even for a #1 nobody had any means by which to wash their hands. I shudder to think about the people who did a #2, I certainly wasn't one of them. You would think that there would be hand sanitizing stations all around the floor, anyway, and you would think wrong.

After the restrooms had been shut down completely, we were allowed to go off property during our regular breaks and lunch to do whatever we had to do biologically. Of course, we could not do that while filling orders or it would be an instant termination for leaving the property while we were on the clock. We were told that. Actually, we technically shouldn't have been allowed (if you really want to go by the book) to leave the property to urinate in the weeds during a break, because that's still technically on the clock, but permission was given for that. Nobody was given the option to leave as they would have considered it unauthorized and it would get you termed for job abandonment.

Here's the best part: We all had our hands all over everybody's food. You know produce is distributed in something called IFCOs, and sometimes we make direct contact with the produce. For instance, if the food shifts and the fruit ends up too high on one side of the IFCOs we have to move it or they will not stack. So, have to physically move the produce. It's not like we're just touching boxes, here. Even if we were, could still contaminate it to all of the other people who have to touch the boxes.

Spills, too, goes right back in whatever the container is. Reason why is because if you spill something and admit it that's going to be a Step 1 write-up for loss. This is working produce. You get two step ones, two step twos, one step three and then it's a term. It counts against you even if you have the misfortune of picking up a broken IFCO or case that collapses. So...if you choose to admit it, pick up six broken things in a six month period and anything hits the floor and you're gone.

Even if you do admit it, it still gets picked up off of the floor and put back in the containers, usually, sometimes they decide they don't want to do that but that only lasts a few days before they revert back.

Thus, we sent out produce that had been order filled by a bunch of dirty people who could not wash their hands and almost all of whom had gone #1 with some of them having done the dirty deuce. Yummy!

There's your social and moral responsibility.

That's probably my fifth or sixth most disgusting story in terms of gross health and safety violations. The rest were not at the Distribution Center, that was the worst thing to happen there.

Gloves? You don't want to know about gloves. Our gloves were a health hazard of themselves pretty much all the time.

Quote: Mission146

Not slave labor, per se, but to assume that most employers have any notion of social responsibility is erroneous.

Mission,

True. We no longer call it "slave" labor.

However, about 20 percent of American workers are now in jobs that require employees to sign "non-compete" clauses. Perhaps this makes (some) sense if you are an engineer at Tesla or a senior data guru at Amazon. But, we're seeing it in companies like the Jimmy-John sandwich company (unless they recently stopped the practice). For example, if you work in one fast-food restaurant and leave, you cannot get another job in the fast-food restaurant business.

In this article, noted commentator Thom Hartmann explains how corporations want to make sure workers can never again have any say in how they are treated:

A 21st-Century Form of Indentured Servitude Has Already Penetrated Deep into the American Heartland.

Don't get me wrong. I believe companies have a right to protect corporate secrets, some of which may be revealed to its employees on a need-to-know basis. And, those employees should be required to agree to any reasonable non-disclosure agreement as part of their employment. As a consultant, I had to do this on numerous occasions, and I always kept the company's secret information from anyone, and especially from any possible competitor.

However, I once worked (briefly) for a company that had the confidentiality agreement to end all confidentiality agreements. It basically said, anything I created while in their employ, they owned. And, if there were exceptions, I was required to list them on the form. For example, you might be an expert in antique license plates and would write articles from time to time in the Crank and Putt Antique Car Journal. Then, the company would say, "OK, we claim no ownership of that." But, perish the thought that you ever developed expertise in gaming strategies and wrote a book, even though the company itself marketed personnel services and benefits.

The Supreme Court sez corporations are "people" in the eyes of the law. But, they are not people like most non-corporate people -- moms and dads and families of every sort -- because corporations have only one purpose: to generate as much money as possible for their shareholders. No morality there (unless the company believes it can leverage sales from it). Most real people have a more embracing view of their moral responsibility, for example, by treating others as they themselves would wish to be treated.

LuckyPhow,

Exactly! Also, nobody wants me to even get into the four or five more disgusting stories that I have than that one, that one was downright tame in comparison.

I agree with pretty much everything you said about the Non-Compete Clauses. I think that the requirement is sometimes justifiable in an inventing/innovating type of industry in which a disgruntled employee can just walk off with original ideas and take them straight across the street to another company. I could get where an NDA might not be sufficient, but it would be an extremely rare (and probably already high-paying) job for that to be the case.

When it comes to any other industry, NCC's are pretty clearly for the purpose of locking in an employee's wages not only so they can't take a job with better pay/benefits with another company, but also, so you really don't have to worry about giving them increased wages or improved benefits. Furthermore, it devalues the purpose of higher education to the extent that many people attend college for years to become qualified to work in a certain field and then a NCC prevents them from being able to take another job in that field for x amount of time. If they ever want to leave the employer, they have to go to a completely unrelated industry and may well have to start at or near entry level due to the lack of qualifications.

NDA's are pretty much standard no matter where you go, in my experience. I think they just slap them in contracts or, 'Employee Agreements,' in general terms, now. I've signed NDA's at menial jobs for which the amount of experience needed was essentially none.

Your last sentence pretty much sums the whole thing up.

My biggest problem is when corporations employ these sorts of tactics and agreements to people making under six figures annually. If someone is making, and it's probably tough to put a solid number on it, but 250k or more and I really don't cry for them if they get locked into a NCC. I think $24,600 is poverty level for a family of 4, so unless a corporation is paying at least double that to someone, I really don't see how a NCC is even borderline justifiable.

Quote: Mission146

My biggest problem is when corporations employ these sorts of tactics and agreements to people making under six figures annually. If someone is making, and it's probably tough to put a solid number on it, but 250k or more and I really don't cry for them if they get locked into a NCC. I think $24,600 is poverty level for a family of 4, so unless a corporation is paying at least double that to someone, I really don't see how a NCC is even borderline justifiable.

My thought is that if an employee agrees to a non-compete when being hired, the company should have the option of executing it when the employee departs but the company is required to keep paying the ex-employee their current wage and benefits. The ex-employee is free to work in any other position that doesn't compete, for whatever wages the market demands. At the end of the first year the employer can opt-in for a second and final year of the non-compete.

I think in most cases this is a win-win for both employer and employee.

I heard those non-compete clauses are total B.S. and not even remotely legally enforceable. Nothing but a scare tactic. Anybody know if that's true?

Quote: DRich

My thought is that if an employee agrees to a non-compete when being hired, the company should have the option of executing it when the employee departs but the company is required to keep paying the ex-employee their current wage and benefits. The ex-employee is free to work in any other position that doesn't compete, for whatever wages the market demands. At the end of the first year the employer can opt-in for a second and final year of the non-compete.

I think in most cases this is a win-win for both employer and employee.

My problem with that is: Wouldn't some people just leave to get free pay for a year? I mean, if you took a job in a different industry making half of the money, now you would be making 150% of the money for a year, shortsighted maybe, but I could see some people doing it.

I would propose something pretty similar to your idea, though. My suggestion would be that the company hires the employee for x length contract, but if the employee is fired/laid off for a non at-fault reason, or if the employee resigns, the original company must continue to pay him something like 25-50% of his salary (it could vary) not to take a different job in the same industry.

So, you're contracting him for two things:

1.) His labor.

2.) Not to take a job with a competitor.

But, those are considered as two separate and unrelated items with compensation for each.

Quote: Mission146

My problem with that is: Wouldn't some people just leave to get free pay for a year? I mean, if you took a job in a different industry making half of the money, now you would be making 150% of the money for a year, shortsighted maybe, but I could see some people doing it.

That is where I think the beauty of it is because the company has the option of enforcing the NC or not when the employee leaves. If the employee quits and they did not have another job lined up, they are gambling because the employer may not enforce the NC.

Quote: DRich

That is where I think the beauty of it is because the company has the option of enforcing the NC or not when the employee leaves. If the employee quits and they did not have another job lined up, they are gambling because the employer may not enforce the NC.

I misunderstood your intent, I like that idea, too! I interpreted it as the employer would be locked in to paying the 100% no matter what.

I still sort of like the idea of 25%-50% no matter what just for making the person sign the NCC. My reasoning is that it wouldn't be too difficult (with your way, no offense) for employers to collude to decide ahead of time not to hire one another's people knowing that they all save money in the long run by not ever having to pay out the NCC. They'll choose not to enforce it because the employee is effectively blacklisted for a year anyway.

Quote: Mission146

My reasoning is that it wouldn't be too difficult (with your way, no offense) for employers to collude to decide ahead of time not to hire one another's people knowing that they all save money in the long run by not ever having to pay out the NCC.

A company I worked for offered employees about an 8% raise if they agreed to sign a non-compete. Most people signed it but I did not. In retrospect I should have because it is very hard and expensive for a company to enforce it. About a year later I left the company and hired two of my former employees who did sign the non-compete. The company sent us a threatening letter but it went away after our attorney responded.

It is very difficult to define what "direct competition" is.

My company has non-compete clauses. I am under one. The biggest threat to those of us in consulting is that we get picked off by a partner company or by our customer. Generally, my company only shoots an warning shot if we go work for our customer but does go to legal action if you start using your knowledge to create competitor product.

I've been courted by both and will continue to be. I know that there will be some harassment for me to switch but no actual legal action.

Quote: DRich

A company I worked for offered employees about an 8% raise if they agreed to sign a non-compete. Most people signed it but I did not. In retrospect I should have because it is very hard and expensive for a company to enforce it. About a year later I left the company and hired two of my former employees who did sign the non-compete. The company sent us a threatening letter but it went away after our attorney responded.

It is very difficult to define what "direct competition" is.

I don't know if I would have signed it for eight percent, though, because there's always the question of if they DID enforce it. I think it would kind of depend on the industry, too, how likely it would be for them to enforce it. That and the size of the company, probably. If the legal costs are going to seriously cut into profits temporarily even if they do win, then they'd be even less likely.

"Direct competition," is another good point. The verbiage of the contract is very important. If I were going to force employees to sign a NCC, my verbiage would be something more like, "In the XXX industry." That's a lot more broad.

I'm not saying that's right, but just like we talk about corporations only caring about profits and shareholder return, so do the employees. In a sense, that's your job, right? When you're on the clock you don't really act as an individual, anymore, just as part of an entity. At least, maybe that's what helps me justify doing some things that I wouldn't do as an individual. I mean, some people don't believe my DC story or ask, "Why wouldn't you just walk out," and the answer has a lot to do with having a family and the need to feed said family. Had I been single with no kids, I probably would have told management what to do with themselves and would have walked out. I'd have called the news, too, might have gotten a response if it was a slow news day otherwise.

Quote: boymimbo

My company has non-compete clauses. I am under one. The biggest threat to those of us in consulting is that we get picked off by a partner company or by our customer. Generally, my company only shoots an warning shot if we go work for our customer but does go to legal action if you start using your knowledge to create competitor product.

I've been courted by both and will continue to be. I know that there will be some harassment for me to switch but no actual legal action.

I mean, but should you even have to deal with harassment if you're not working directly inventing stuff? That's the only time I could see it truly being justified, if there is intellectual (and potentially patent-worthy) product that could be lost because of an inventor or developer jumping ship.

For instance, a hair salon that my ex-wife worked at before becoming a nurse made her sign a one-year NCC. She could work at other chains owned by that corporation, but not for a different company. If she quit, then she wasn't supposed to go to any competing company for a year. Obviously, they would never bother to enforce it...but the idea is making people think they would.

I think it also takes advantage of the individual tendency to be fundamentally honest. Like, "If I sign a contract, I need to honor my word."

I just don't understand how a non-compete benefits the company using it. It just seems like a bad business practice. Like, if I started working for a company that does something like restrict my employment opportunities AFTER I've already left, what kinds of shady nonsense are they pulling on me while I'm still working there??

Quote: TigerWu

I just don't understand how a non-compete benefits the company using it. It just seems like a bad business practice. Like, if I started working for a company that does something like restrict my employment opportunities AFTER I've already left, what kinds of shady nonsense are they pulling on me while I'm still working there??

That's the entire point of it, in non-inventing cases. If you can't go elsewhere, your choices are to deal with the shady nonsense (no raises, no improvements to benefits, forcing you to cash out vacation days rather than take a vacation if you are needed) because the alternative is not to work in the industry in which you have experience and are most marketable to other employers.

It takes away a bargaining chip, you go in to talk about a potential raise and you can say, "You know Company X is prepared to hire me at $XXXXX or $XXXXXX per year, that's ten grand more than I'm making now." Well, with the NCC that angle is gone, you can't go work for Company X. Essentially, if it's a two-year contract, you can only quit once every two years and you don't have a huge effective window to get hired elsewhere. Besides that, NCC's are often structured such that technically your benefits under the overall contract (i.e. the employment) end before their benefits (not going to another employer) do. Thus, even if your contract does expire and you leave, you might STILL not be able to go anywhere else for awhile.

Quote: TigerWu

I just don't understand how a non-compete benefits the company using it. It just seems like a bad business practice. Like, if I started working for a company that does something like restrict my employment opportunities AFTER I've already left, what kinds of shady nonsense are they pulling on me while I'm still working there??

You work at Company A, and develop or work on a product that involves proprietary information that was a huge R&D investment for Company A. Company B competes with Company A, and offers you 5x your salary to come and work on their competing product, because you have all that proprietary info in your noggin.

It's to prevent that situation.

Quote: gamerfreak

You work at Company A, and develop or work on a product that involves proprietary information that was a huge R&D investment for Company A. Company B competes with Company A, and offers you 5x your salary to come and work on their competing product, because you have all that proprietary info in your noggin.

It's to prevent that situation.

I agree with that, like I said, if we're talking product R&D, absolutely. My point is, they make servers sign them sometimes, cosmetologists, telemarketing sales reps...etc. What could people in those positions possibly disclose about the previous company that could potentially compromise that company? That the diner uses Mrs. Freaking Dash on the fried eggs!?

Quote: Mission146

I agree with that, like I said, if we're talking product R&D, absolutely. My point is, they make servers sign them sometimes, cosmetologists, telemarketing sales reps...etc. What could people in those positions possibly disclose about the previous company that could potentially compromise that company? That the diner uses Mrs. Freaking Dash on the fried eggs!?

Oh yea, absolutely unreasonable for things like the service industry. An apple engineer, for example, has a much more diverse selection of job opportunities. It wouldn't ruin their career if they couldn't specifically work on a cell phone antenna for a few years. But that may not be the case for a line cook or bartender. It's disgusting to try and legally bar someone from an entire industry. It would be like telling that apple engineer that they couldn't work with anything electronic.

Quote: Mission146

I mean, but should you even have to deal with harassment if you're not working directly inventing stuff? That's the only time I could see it truly being justified, if there is intellectual (and potentially patent-worthy) product that could be lost because of an inventor or developer jumping ship.

For instance, a hair salon that my ex-wife worked at before becoming a nurse made her sign a one-year NCC. She could work at other chains owned by that corporation, but not for a different company. If she quit, then she wasn't supposed to go to any competing company for a year. Obviously, they would never bother to enforce it...but the idea is making people think they would.

I think it also takes advantage of the individual tendency to be fundamentally honest. Like, "If I sign a contract, I need to honor my word."

NCC doesn't just have to do with invention. It has to do with competition and knowing sales practices, margins, and opportunities. But for a nurse, I don't see it, except is the company hiring the nurse is a placement company; then the NCC would apply as there's nothing stopping the target practice from hiring her.

Quote: Mission146

My point is, they make servers sign them sometimes, cosmetologists, telemarketing sales reps...etc. What could people in those positions possibly disclose about the previous company that could potentially compromise that company?

Mission,

You are being too logical about this. Of course, companies like those you mentioned have no good, business-related reason to require non-compete clauses (NCCs) in employment agreements.

The reason companies do this is CONTROL of the workers. If the employee doesn't like the new sick leave policy or the announcement that no one below senior manager gets a raise this year, then TOO BAD. Wha'cha gonna do about it? The employee gets shafted if s/he stays, and suffers professionally if s/he leaves.

One of the main points in my attached "indentured servitude" article yesterday was that Idaho had just toughened state law to make it much easier for companies to enforce those agreements, at great risk of extraordinary legal costs to any now-former employee who takes a position in whatever industry the former employer thinks is a "closely aligned" business.

Previous reference to "slavery" doesn't stray too far from the overall effect of employment agreements such as we discuss here. When are we going to see casino dealers having to sign NCCs, for example? Hopefully -- as it affects low-level tipped employees -- this crap, while immensely unfair, will result in an outstanding level of service to the paying customer. (Just my hope, because we're probably going to see more and more NCCs as businesses realize they can use this tool to abuse their workforce.)

[minor edit, after...]

Quote: boymimbo

NCC doesn't just have to do with invention. It has to do with competition and knowing sales practices, margins, and opportunities. But for a nurse, I don't see it, except is the company hiring the nurse is a placement company; then the NCC would apply as there's nothing stopping the target practice from hiring her.

Yeah, but sales practices for a restaurant? Always pimp dessert, try to push wine, it's a high percentage profit product. The salmon only has a couple days left, make it a special.

Salons? Recommend up dos, push recolors, try to sell product, we mark it up 100%.

That with nurses, but also nurses sometimes get signing bonuses, so you don't want them jumping ship right away.

Here's my opinion, short and sweet: If a company demands a NCC, the employee better be making at least 50k base pay, guaranteed salary.

Quote: LuckyPhow

The reason companies do this is CONTROL of the workers. If the employee doesn't like the new sick leave policy or the announcement that no one below senior manager gets a raise this year, then TOO BAD. Wha'cha gonna do about it? The employee gets shafted if s/he stays, and suffers professionally if s/he leaves.

We're on the same page, and my point is they should be illegal absent a person making a guaranteed salary, minimum 50k, something like that. Menial employees (or those paid like menial employees) shouldn't have to deal with even the faintest hint of legal trouble for jumping ship to somewhere that's paying, what, quarter per hour extra?

Quote:

One of the main points in my attached "indentured servitude" article yesterday was that Idaho had just toughened state law to make it much easier for companies to enforce those agreements, at great risk of extraordinary legal costs to any now-former employee who takes a position in whatever industry the former employer thinks is a "closely aligned" business.

It's a dark red state. Do you expect employee rights in a dark red state? Lock them all into minimum wage, then everyone can gripe when they apply for food stamps and their kids get state insurance.

Just like anti-abortion, all the reds care is that you get born...what happens to you after that, in their view, isn't the Government's concern. Whether or not you get born is, though.

Quote:

Previous reference to "slavery" doesn't stray too far from the overall effect of employment agreements such as we discuss here. When are we going to see casino dealers having to sign NCCs, for example? Hopefully -- as it affects low-level tipped employees -- this crap, while immensely unfair, will result in an outstanding level of service to the paying customer. (Just my hope, because we're probably going to see more and more NCCs as businesses realize they can use this tool to abuse their workforce.)

[minor edit, after...]

Well, I mean, it's not literal slavery. We're not talking about twelve year olds in China or anything, but my point is to assume that there is any social or moral responsibility from a corporation is nuts. It's nuts to assume there is in a small business. Some employers are fine, it varies from business to business, some employers are great.

However, to think some employees aren't treated in a way that can constitute, "Slave-Labor," at least from time to time, is incorrect. Not Chinese slave labor, of course, but yes, some people could definitely be considered slaves to their job.

One hint is that it's a non-Union job. Now...I don't like Unions, necessarily, because I think they sometimes take things too far. They would sooner see a company close than show any weakness, in some cases. I mean, you can't have terms that are going to put the company out of business, either. But, I do have to grant that a Union would never allow an NCC in a retail/service job.

When I ran my bars and clubs, I didn't have my staff sign a no compete clause. I simply told them they weren't allowed to and if they did, I'd find out and they 'd be fired and barred from ever working with me again. As I was part of a pretty large group and most bars are independently owned, it was not something to take lightly.
Why did I want a waitress or bartender or dancer not working for a competitor? Not that I was afraid of secrets, I didn't want mixed loyalty. I didn't want them working someplace else on their nights off and telling customers to visit them there. I didn't want competitors poaching my workers.
It was 100% enforceable, just not through the courts.

That's nice of you not wanting to moonlight in the industry they're skilled in to make a little extra money. We have something for that, it's called, "This job comes first," you make sure they show up to work for you if you are the full-time employer. Otherwise, hold them to the regular attendance policy. If you find out they were, in fact, working elsewhere when you scheduled them, then fire them, that's understandable.

Did you make this for part-time employees, too, or was it just full-time? Were they allowed to work an unrelated job on off days?

I mean, I like you, so I'm just hoping you don't have that, "Pay people forty hours, own them 168 hours," attitude.

I'm okay with it as long as they could work an unrelated job off days. It's not like they couldn't quit you and work at a different bar. If you gave me that line, I'd never work for you in the first place, no offense. Nothing against you, I wouldn't take ANY job that said that. You don't want me to work somewhere else my days off, okay, pay me eight hours on my off days, too.

I never forced anyone to work for me. When they came in, they were told the employment conditions and could accept them or not. Many of my part timers had full time jobs. Others had part time jobs, they just couldn't work for my competition.
I didn't own my workers when they were off, but if some of them wanted to go out to a competitors place and try to convince people to come visit them on the nights they worked, I'd happily sponsor such a trip.
I lost some good candidates because of these rules, and I wished them all the best. I fired a few people for breaking the rules and the best term I can think of is Mr Wonderfuls- You are dead to me now.
Considering that most of my bartenders never bartended before I hired them, and could make several hundred a night working for me, I expected, and rewarded, loyalty. I liked to train my workers, not hire people with baggage. I gave them opportunities, not just jobs.

Quote: billryan

I never forced anyone to work for me. When they came in, they were told the employment conditions and could accept them or not. Many of my part timers had full time jobs. Others had part time jobs, they just couldn't work for my competition.
I didn't own my workers when they were off, but if some of them wanted to go out to a competitors place and try to convince people to come visit them on the nights they worked, I'd happily sponsor such a trip.
I lost some good candidates because of these rules, and I wished them all the best. I fired a few people for breaking the rules and the best term I can think of is Mr Wonderfuls- You are dead to me now.
Considering that most of my bartenders never bartended before I hired them, and could make several hundred a night working for me, I expected, and rewarded, loyalty. I liked to train my workers, not hire people with baggage. I gave them opportunities, not just jobs.

I mean, but that's the same thing other companies can say about NCC's, "I never forced the job candidate to work for me." I mean, the employer holds all the cards, the employer isn't the one trying to put food on the table. I also understand that the laws of supply and demand don't suspend themselves for labor, but again, that's something employers can take advantage of in this way. If there's a non-zero number of people looking for jobs who don't yet have one, someone's going to agree.

The one thing I will say, if it's just competition, then I can live with that. It's not like you're not letting them work at a grocery store the other nights a week, or something. If I did work for you and those were your rules, though, you could forget about me drinking at your bar nights off, and while I wouldn't tell them, it'd be no big secret I could be found at your competitors' on my nights off spending my money there.

They made several hundred a night working for the customers, not for you, that's why you were scared to death at the thought of them moonlighting elsewhere. If, "Working for you," was exclusively responsible for them making, "Several hundred a night," they wouldn't have even thought about spending off nights working elsewhere in the first place.

I just disagree with it, but it was your place to run. I can tell you that you probably didn't get loyalty from most people, though. You expected and rewarded fear. If it was loyalty, they wouldn't want to work for the competition anyway. True loyalty, and they'd be on the opposite side of your bar on their nights off. Threats don't foster loyalty.

Quote: Mission146

It's a dark red state. Do you expect employee rights in a dark red state [Idaho]?

Mission,

As I see it, this is nothing unique to Idaho. Let's all keep our eyes open, OK?

The corporate/business world has bought our Congress, made one of its own our president, and (may) now have a Supreme Court majority that will allow businesses to do whatever suits their fancy. And, it's getting worse, day by day, as this analysis illustrates: American Aristocrats Have Come to Rule America.

I agree with you (and others) who suggest how it "should" be. But, it increasingly appears business has become the ultimate "decider." And Business wants the power to force workers into situations where they have no defense against their corporate overlords. Apparently, as long as business donors continue to grease the palms of politicians, from the biggest to the smallest, those in power will stand aside and let it happen.

As the article (above) notes, "It's not an overstatement to say that we're now living in Plantation America." Readers may or may not agree, but the article is generous with numerous sources that underscore its main points.

We live in a very sick society today, with the democratic principles that set this country apart now in tatters, all at the behest of our Corporate Overlords. R.I.P.

"The one thing I will say, if it's just competition, then I can live with that. It's not like you're not letting them work at a grocery store the other nights a week, or something. If I did work for you and those were your rules, though, you could forget about me drinking at your bar nights off, and while I wouldn't tell them, it'd be no big secret I could be found at your competitors' on my nights off spending my money there. "




I didn't want my employees hanging around my bar on their nights off. In fact, if they wanted to go to one of my competitors places, I'd grub stake them and give them extra to buy drinks for people. Hopefully, those people would come visit them in my bar and we'd gain new customers. Sometimes, I'd even do that with potential employees. Cheapest new customer acquisitions cost there is. Another reason why you don't want employees hanging out on their night off is they become friends with the customers and don't always ring up as they should.
You are free to disagree, but I'll just tell you you are mistaken. My grand plan involved buying failing bars , building them up and selling them as they started to peak.
A good deal of my team would come work at my next project when there was room for them. Sadly, we ran out of old man dive bars to flip.

Three semi-unique tipping situations in less than 24 hours.

A)My car got a flat. Called Mazda roadside service and they quickly sent a guy to change it for me.
I tipped him $10, and he seemed genuinely surprised. He told me in six months, he'd received a handful of tips, the biggest before this was $5.
B)Took the tire in to get inspected, patched and put back on the car. Superior Tire( Sunset, east of Green Valley) did it for no charge.
Tipped the guy who gave me the key $5 and he said he didn't do anything. I said give it to whomever did the work, and he turned around and asked the manager if they were allowed to accept tips. WTF? The third was perplexing.
C)Ate at The Wildfire Grill. You order from the cashier, and pay up front. He gave me a plastic cup and said sit wherever you want. Self service drinks and a number you put on the table so the guy knows which table I'm at. Very nice meal for $4.32. What to tip? I had $1.40 in change so that's what I left.

Quote: billryan

B)Took the tire in to get inspected, patched and put back on the car. Superior Tire( Sunset, east of Green Valley) did it for no charge.
Tipped the guy who gave me the key $5 and he said he didn't do anything. I said give it to whomever did the work, and he turned around and asked the manager if they were allowed to accept tips. WTF?

That's common at a lot of places, that employees aren't allowed to accept tips. That's true at the place I work now. I've accepted tips, but it's been on the downlow, because I think those rules are stupid. I don't know how you can legally enforce someone from not accepting a tip, though, other than just coming up with some other B.S. reason to fire them.

Duplicated.

Quote: LuckyPhow

Mission,

True. We no longer call it "slave" labor.

However, about 20 percent of American workers are now in jobs that require employees to sign "non-compete" clauses. Perhaps this makes (some) sense if you are an engineer at Tesla or a senior data guru at Amazon. But, we're seeing it in companies like the Jimmy-John sandwich company (unless they recently stopped the practice). For example, if you work in one fast-food restaurant and leave, you cannot get another job in the fast-food restaurant business.

In this article, noted commentator Thom Hartmann explains how corporations want to make sure workers can never again have any say in how they are treated:

A 21st-Century Form of Indentured Servitude Has Already Penetrated Deep into the American Heartland.

Don't get me wrong. I believe companies have a right to protect corporate secrets, some of which may be revealed to its employees on a need-to-know basis. And, those employees should be required to agree to any reasonable non-disclosure agreement as part of their employment. As a consultant, I had to do this on numerous occasions, and I always kept the company's secret information from anyone, and especially from any possible competitor.

However, I once worked (briefly) for a company that had the confidentiality agreement to end all confidentiality agreements. It basically said, anything I created while in their employ, they owned. And, if there were exceptions, I was required to list them on the form. For example, you might be an expert in antique license plates and would write articles from time to time in the Crank and Putt Antique Car Journal. Then, the company would say, "OK, we claim no ownership of that." But, perish the thought that you ever developed expertise in gaming strategies and wrote a book, even though the company itself marketed personnel services and benefits.

The Supreme Court sez corporations are "people" in the eyes of the law. But, they are not people like most non-corporate people -- moms and dads and families of every sort -- because corporations have only one purpose: to generate as much money as possible for their shareholders. No morality there (unless the company believes it can leverage sales from it). Most real people have a more embracing view of their moral responsibility, for example, by treating others as they themselves would wish to be treated.

This thread started out as a discussion about tipping. It has then morphed into a corporate moral/social responsibility discussion, and now the discussion is on non-disclosure & non-competitive agreement. Such transformation of discussion is all good and is unavoidable when participants provide rich ideas and wide variety of opinions.

Non-disclosure & non-competitive agreement is useful tool to protect trade secret and competition advantage, but such agreement can be unconstitutional, or violates certain statutory law or regulation (such as labor laws???, antitrust legislation …), and therefore may not be enforceable.

I notice the discussion on non-disclosure & non-competitive agreement lacks real life example or current event example. So let me offer few examples – (1) the recent Uber vs. Google self-driving car lawsuit, (2) the recent EU Regulator vs. Teva dispute over generic drug deal, and (3) the on-going controversy surrounding the U.S. Constitution’s Emoluments Clause vs. the rapist, racist, sexist, scam-artist, and con-man Trump. I hope my contribution to this discussion can benefit everybody.

Items (1) and (2) have non-disclosure and non-competitive elements, and you can find the detailed discussions from the following links.

https://www.google.com/search?q=morphed+definition&rlz=1C1CHZL_enUS748US748&oq=morphed+definition&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.8966j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=uber+google+self+driving+car+lawsuit

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/eu-regulators-charge-teva-over-103840663.html

https://www.google.com/search?q=antitrust+legislation&rlz=1C1CHZL_enUS748US748&oq=anti-trust&aqs=chrome.3.69i57j0l5.6545j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=EU+regulators+vs.+teva+pay-for-delay+drug+deal

I know everyone is asking what does the rapist, racist, sexist, scam-artist, and con-man Trump’s apparent violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Emoluments Clause have anything to do with the non-disclosure and non-competitive discussion here? Before I answer your question, let’s first look at numerous rich discussions about U.S. Constitution’s Emoluments Clause vs. the rapist, racist, sexist, scam-artist, and con-man Trump.

https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+emulsion+clause&rlz=1C1CHZL_enUS748US748&oq=trump+emulsion+clause&aqs=chrome..69i57.26537j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Now, in order to address your inquiring mind, let’s assume a potential non-disclosure and non-competitive agreement if the rapist, racist, sexist, scam-artist, and con-man Trump is decreed by the Federal Court or SCOTUS to sell his properties. Because Trump has history bad reputations in business practices and dealings and he also lacks the moral values, should the buyer(s) of Trump's hotel & condom (sp?) properties and other businesses then demand a very broad non-compete agreement that bars Trump from engaging in ALL real estate dealings for 4 years, 10 years, or a life-time? And would such agreement violate any antitrust or other legislation?

Quote: 777

I hope my contribution to this discussion can benefit everybody. ... Now, in order to address your inquiring mind, let’s assume a potential non-disclosure and non-competitive agreement if the rapist, racist, sexist, scam-artist, and con-man Trump is decreed by the Federal Court or SCOTUS to sell his properties. Because Trump has history bad reputations ... should the buyer(s) of Trump's hotel & condom (sp?) properties and other businesses then demand a very broad non-compete agreement that bars Trump from engaging in ALL real estate dealings for 4 years, 10 years, or a life-time? And would such agreement violate any antitrust or other legislation?

777,

I thought your references to Uber were spot on, highlighting a high-level employee with access to proprietary information going to work for a direct competitor. The reference to Teva seemed more a stretch because it involved two companies fighting with one another.

As to your reference to President pussy-grabber and his high-handed refusal to adhere to requirements in the emoluments clause, I'm sure we've all seen legal "experts" arguing both sides of the issue. Seems to me SCOTUS might uphold a lower court that found non-compliance, but IMHO it wouldn't try to involve itself in overseeing him selling his properties.

I think SCOTUS would be limited in saying only that he's in violation and that Congress should take him out to the woodshed for a little impeachment. But, if that happened, Congress would just ignore SCOTUS. The president would announce victory to his minions and continue as before. Since SCOTUS probably knows this already, it wouldn't allow itself to be put in this position.

I haven't seen Trump's taxes (like he promised). But, I believe the president owns no property personally. He owns stock in companies that own property. So, the non-compete -- if implemented as you suggest it might -- gets enormously more complex. Too much for me on a Friday afternoon. Maybe a WoV legal beagle will take a shot at it.

So funny that this conversation has been going on. So today we go to local casino for buffet. We get to the seat and the hostess tells us to go get grub. We get back and our drinks are on the table. We each finished our plates and went for a 2nd plate. We finished those plates and got dessert. As we were getting dessert someone took our plates. Drinks were both basically empty. We finished our dessert and left. We never saw anyone in our section and got no refills on drinks. How much of a tip wouLD you leave? Cost for 2 is $40, but we paid $0 on a comp.

Quote: GWAE

So funny that this conversation has been going on. So today we go to local casino for buffet. We get to the seat and the hostess tells us to go get grub. We get back and our drinks are on the table. We each finished our plates and went for a 2nd plate. We finished those plates and got dessert. As we were getting dessert someone took our plates. Drinks were both basically empty. We finished our dessert and left. We never saw anyone in our section and got no refills on drinks. How much of a tip wouLD you leave? Cost for 2 is $40, but we paid $0 on a comp.

Show Spoiler

we left no tip. I mentioned earlier in this thread that if you leave no tip then you should get manager and conplain. I did not do that because we were not mad about the no service and I was ok with not tipping so no need to make a complaint.

I think $2/person is about the lowest I would tip at a buffet, comp'd or not. I usually tip at least $5.

Quote: gamerfreak

Quote: GWAE

So funny that this conversation has been going on. So today we go to local casino for buffet. We get to the seat and the hostess tells us to go get grub. We get back and our drinks are on the table. We each finished our plates and went for a 2nd plate. We finished those plates and got dessert. As we were getting dessert someone took our plates. Drinks were both basically empty. We finished our dessert and left. We never saw anyone in our section and got no refills on drinks. How much of a tip wouLD you leave? Cost for 2 is $40, but we paid $0 on a comp.

Show Spoiler

we left no tip. I mentioned earlier in this thread that if you leave no tip then you should get manager and conplain. I did not do that because we were not mad about the no service and I was ok with not tipping so no need to make a complaint.

I think $2/person is about the lowest I would tip at a buffet, comp'd or not. I usually tip at least $5.

I usually tip $5 for the 2 of us.

I'd have left a dollar, someone bought you drinks and took your empties. No refills would aggravate me. I generally ask for two glasses at the start.

Quote: GWAE

Quote: gamerfreak

Quote: GWAE

So funny that this conversation has been going on. So today we go to local casino for buffet. We get to the seat and the hostess tells us to go get grub. We get back and our drinks are on the table. We each finished our plates and went for a 2nd plate. We finished those plates and got dessert. As we were getting dessert someone took our plates. Drinks were both basically empty. We finished our dessert and left. We never saw anyone in our section and got no refills on drinks. How much of a tip wouLD you leave? Cost for 2 is $40, but we paid $0 on a comp.

Show Spoiler

we left no tip. I mentioned earlier in this thread that if you leave no tip then you should get manager and conplain. I did not do that because we were not mad about the no service and I was ok with not tipping so no need to make a complaint.

I think $2/person is about the lowest I would tip at a buffet, comp'd or not. I usually tip at least $5.

I usually tip $5 for the 2 of us.

What, you tip $5 for the both of you....then you're good to go and don't need to tip on your next 4 visits? I mean, if that works for you -- great. I'd rather just tip $1 every time that way I don't have to remember if I'm supposed to tip $5 this time or if it's one of the free 4 visits.

Speaking of NDA, yesterday CBS news report a story about confidentiality agreement that employees of racist, rapist, sexist, scam-artist, and con-man Trump and his family must sign. According to the news story, the agreement lasts forever and is retroactive.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-organization-new-confidentiality-agreement-employees-family-secret/

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/07/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/