• deejay4am
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -81 year ago

    I think in this case, “banned” is referring to “paying workers below minimum hourly wage because they’re expected to make up the difference by convincing our patrons to generously donate +20% of their dinner bill”, not “citizens will be fined/incarcerated if they give someone money of their own free will”

    • @diyrebel@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -11 year ago

      That would make sense, but then why did they follow that with “Workers need to demand living wages at the same time as ban comes into effect”?

      • @Eldritch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        Because it logically follows. If the businesses have to stop relying on customers to pay their employees what they are worth. Someone should have to pay their employees a valid living wage. And that logically would be the company.

        • @diyrebel@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Right but that’s not the logic I replied to. @Amilo159@lemmy.world proposed a ban on tips, not on below min wage payments, then wrote as a separate statement that higher wages should be demanded. So @4am@lemmy.world’s interpretation was an incorrect interpretation – though it’s the right idea.

          You seem to be viewing tips as an all-or-nothing proposition. When in fact you can have a tipping culture that is not used as a crutch for wages (as most of Europe demonstrates).