Republicans Cut Pay for Servers and Bartenders

[KenFSU]

Again I ask though, if restaurants are guaranteeing that their servers will make a starting wage of $9.98 an hour through the combination of a $2.13 an hour minimum wage plus tips, and are legally required to make up the difference if they do not, what is their to be outraged about? Those restaurants who cannot afford to guarantee their servers that much money will continue with the previous $4.65 an hour minimum wage.

I don't see who the big, bad 1% holding back the poor server slaves are.

The small business owners operating a local restaurant or individual franchise, selling food on a razor thin margin yet still agreeing to, by default, pay their starting servers a minimum of $2.50 over the minimum wage, with the opportunity to earn more through good work, simply because of their job classification?

This isn't even about minimum wage.

It's about restaurant owner's contribution toward minimum wage, which is a hugely different matter.

All other things held constant, this should actually help servers as a whole.

If half of that $2.50 in savings is used toward giving more hours to servers (which, as I previously mentioned, has been a real struggle for restaurant owners in the last six years), and the other half is utilized to either increase quality or decrease menu prices, everyone wins. The servers get more hours. Customers go out to eat more, increasing restaurant revenues and perhaps necessating even more servers. Restaurant owners aren't going under to pay $4.65 an hour to servers who are already bringing in $20 an hour in tips.

Who loses?

[FayeforCure]

If half of that $2.50 in savings is used toward giving more hours to servers (which, as I previously mentioned, has been a real struggle for restaurant owners in the last six years), and the other half is utilized to either increase quality or decrease menu prices, everyone wins. The servers get more hours. Customers go out to eat more, increasing restaurant revenues and perhaps necessating even more servers. Restaurant owners aren't going under to pay $4.65 an hour to servers who are already bringing in $20 an hour in tips.

Who loses?

Everyone looses. It's a race to the bottom..........exploiting our servers......making them work more hours for the same pay, so they can kiss any type of schooling they might be pursuing goodbye, and stay permanently stuck in an underclass.

Decreasing menu prices, or restaurant owners just pocketing more profits.........what do you think will happen?

I already know.

[KenFSU]

If half of that $2.50 in savings is used toward giving more hours to servers (which, as I previously mentioned, has been a real struggle for restaurant owners in the last six years), and the other half is utilized to either increase quality or decrease menu prices, everyone wins. The servers get more hours. Customers go out to eat more, increasing restaurant revenues and perhaps necessating even more servers. Restaurant owners aren't going under to pay $4.65 an hour to servers who are already bringing in $20 an hour in tips.

Who loses?

Everyone looses. It's a race to the bottom..........exploiting our servers......making them work more hours for the same pay, so they can kiss any type of schooling they might be pursuing goodbye, and stay permanently stuck in an underclass.

Decreasing menu prices, or restaurant owners just pocketing more profits.........what do you think will happen?

I already know.

There's no exploitation going on here. And they wouldn't be working more hours for the same pay. If a restaurant owner has $4.65 that he can afford to spend on table service, with a $4.65 minimum wage, he can afford one waitress for one hour. She will walk away with $4.65, plus tips, which we'll call an additional $10 for simplicity sake. So she'll make $14.65 for the day. If he has the same $4.65 to spend on table service, but minimum wage is halved, he can afford to let the same waitress stay on the floor for two hours. She'll make much more money with choice two ($24.65 instead of $14.65), despite the lower (owner's contribution toward) minimum wage.

Secondly, with schooling, where there is a will, there is a way. If someone lets a $2 decrease in server wages prevent them from completing school and is instead forced into a life of indentured servitude at Applebees, they probably wouldn't have been that successful in the workforce to begin with. There are so many opportunities for financial aid, and scholarships, and payment plans, and city colleges out there that a college education should never be impossible for anyone if they want it badly enough. Some are born into better positions than others, but there's plenty of success to go around if you want it bad enough.

And yes, I do know what would happen.

The greedy owners who don't reinvest will find themselves out of business, and the wise owners who do use any additional revenue to improve quality or decrease prices will remain in business.

Golly, I probably sound like I hate servers. I really don't. Like I said, I did it myself when I was younger. I just think there's this weird sense of entitlement with servers that you don't see with other comparable jobs.

And, as with most issues of minimum wage, I think people tend to forget that the higher you push up minimum wage, the more jobs, hours, and benefits you eliminate in the process.

I'm fully with you on the system being broken, and I'm equally upset about the gross income disparity out there, I just don't think it necessary applies to this specific situation.

[FayeforCure]

If half of that $2.50 in savings is used toward giving more hours to servers (which, as I previously mentioned, has been a real struggle for restaurant owners in the last six years), and the other half is utilized to either increase quality or decrease menu prices, everyone wins. The servers get more hours. Customers go out to eat more, increasing restaurant revenues and perhaps necessating even more servers. Restaurant owners aren't going under to pay $4.65 an hour to servers who are already bringing in $20 an hour in tips.

Who loses?

Everyone looses. It's a race to the bottom..........exploiting our servers......making them work more hours for the same pay, so they can kiss any type of schooling they might be pursuing goodbye, and stay permanently stuck in an underclass.

Decreasing menu prices, or restaurant owners just pocketing more profits.........what do you think will happen?

I already know.

There's no exploitation going on here. And they wouldn't be working more hours for the same pay. If a restaurant owner has $4.65 that he can afford to spend on table service, with a $4.65 minimum wage, he can afford one waitress for one hour. She will walk away with $4.65, plus tips, which we'll call an additional $10 for simplicity sake. So she'll make $14.65 for the day. If he has the same $4.65 to spend on table service, but minimum wage is halved, he can afford to let the same waitress stay on the floor for two hours. She'll make much more money with choice two ($24.65 instead of $14.65), despite the lower (owner's contribution toward) minimum wage.


And, as with most issues of minimum wage, I think people tend to forget that the higher you push up minimum wage, the more jobs, hours, and benefits you eliminate in the process.

I'm fully with you on the system being broken, and I'm equally upset about the gross income disparity out there, I just don't think it necessary applies to this specific situation.

He or she will be making $24.65 vs $28.65 for the same amount of working............talk about "making work pay"

Republicans make sure work doesn't pay.

Higher min. wage does NOT eliminate jobs..............that is just a Republican talking point. By that token there would hardly be any server jobs in Europe. But here is the American experience with raising the min. wage:

Not getting by on minimum wage

By Chris Isidore @CNNMoney September 27, 2011: 9:39 AM ET



NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Most experts agree that to get out of the economic slump, we need more jobs.

But another problem is that millions of Americans already have jobs that don't pay very much.

Getting the economy going will require more than just creating a large number of low-wage positions, said Paul Osterman, economics professor at MIT. Raising the minimum wage to get more cash to the working poor is just as crucial, he said.

About 20% of American adults who have jobs are earning only $10.65 an hour or less, according to Osterman's analysis. Even at 40 hours a week, that amounts to less than $22,314, the poverty level for a family of four.

The federal minimum wage currently stands at $7.25 an hour (18 states set their own rates above the federal level, maxing out at $8.67 an hour in Washington State).

But increases have not kept up with inflation. When adjusted for inflation, the highest federal minimum wage was in 1968, when it was the equivalent of $10.38 in today's dollars.

Poverty's home: The suburbs

Osterman, who has written a new book called "Good Jobs America," said gradually raising the federal minimum wage to something close to that level over the next few years would be an important first step to helping the working poor climb out of poverty, while injecting more money into the economy.

"If you give someone making $15,000 a year a $3,000 increase, that's going to make a tremendous difference in their life," he said.

With a greater percentage of the nation's income going to corporate profits than ever before, Osterman argues that businesses can afford a higher minimum wage.

"There needs to be standards in the job market," he said. "If the object is simply to minimize costs, we can use slaves again."

A 'job-killing' policy?

Many economists and small business owners fear that increasing the minimum wage would end up hurting the working poor rather than helping them, because employers who couldn't afford to pay more would be forced to cut staff.

But there's little empirical evidence to suggest that raising the minimum wage causes companies to cut back on hiring, according to Heidi Shierholz, labor economist for the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank.

In fact, one study conducted by Alan Krueger, President Obama's pick for his next chief economic adviser, found little difference in employment levels of fast food industries in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, which have different minimum wages.

"When you look at surveys of businesses, they consistently list weak demand as the key problem holding hiring back. Wages are nowhere near the major concern for employers," Paul Sonn, legal co-director of the National Employment Law Project Action Fund. "They may not realize it but raising the minimum wage would help sales and help them increase their hiring."

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/27/news/economy/minimum_wage_jobs/index.htm

[bill]

If half of that $2.50 in savings is used toward giving more hours to servers (which, as I previously mentioned, has been a real struggle for restaurant owners in the last six years), and the other half is utilized to either increase quality or decrease menu prices, everyone wins. The servers get more hours. Customers go out to eat more, increasing restaurant revenues and perhaps necessating even more servers. Restaurant owners aren't going under to pay $4.65 an hour to servers who are already bringing in $20 an hour in tips.

Who loses?

Everyone looses. It's a race to the bottom..........exploiting our servers......making them work more hours for the same pay, so they can kiss any type of schooling they might be pursuing goodbye, and stay permanently stuck in an underclass.

Decreasing menu prices, or restaurant owners just pocketing more profits.........what do you think will happen?

I already know.

There's no exploitation going on here. And they wouldn't be working more hours for the same pay. If a restaurant owner has $4.65 that he can afford to spend on table service, with a $4.65 minimum wage, he can afford one waitress for one hour. She will walk away with $4.65, plus tips, which we'll call an additional $10 for simplicity sake. So she'll make $14.65 for the day. If he has the same $4.65 to spend on table service, but minimum wage is halved, he can afford to let the same waitress stay on the floor for two hours. She'll make much more money with choice two ($24.65 instead of $14.65), despite the lower (owner's contribution toward) minimum wage.


And, as with most issues of minimum wage, I think people tend to forget that the higher you push up minimum wage, the more jobs, hours, and benefits you eliminate in the process.

I'm fully with you on the system being broken, and I'm equally upset about the gross income disparity out there, I just don't think it necessary applies to this specific situation.

He or she will be making $24.65 vs $28.65 for the same amount of working............talk about "making work pay"

Republicans make sure work doesn't pay.

Higher min. wage does NOT eliminate jobs..............that is just a Republican talking point. By that token there would hardly be any server jobs in Europe. But here is the American experience with raising the min. wage:

Not getting by on minimum wage

By Chris Isidore @CNNMoney September 27, 2011: 9:39 AM ET



NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Most experts agree that to get out of the economic slump, we need more jobs.

But another problem is that millions of Americans already have jobs that don't pay very much.

Getting the economy going will require more than just creating a large number of low-wage positions, said Paul Osterman, economics professor at MIT. Raising the minimum wage to get more cash to the working poor is just as crucial, he said.

About 20% of American adults who have jobs are earning only $10.65 an hour or less, according to Osterman's analysis. Even at 40 hours a week, that amounts to less than $22,314, the poverty level for a family of four.

The federal minimum wage currently stands at $7.25 an hour (18 states set their own rates above the federal level, maxing out at $8.67 an hour in Washington State).

But increases have not kept up with inflation. When adjusted for inflation, the highest federal minimum wage was in 1968, when it was the equivalent of $10.38 in today's dollars.

Poverty's home: The suburbs

Osterman, who has written a new book called "Good Jobs America," said gradually raising the federal minimum wage to something close to that level over the next few years would be an important first step to helping the working poor climb out of poverty, while injecting more money into the economy.

"If you give someone making $15,000 a year a $3,000 increase, that's going to make a tremendous difference in their life," he said.

With a greater percentage of the nation's income going to corporate profits than ever before, Osterman argues that businesses can afford a higher minimum wage.

"There needs to be standards in the job market," he said. "If the object is simply to minimize costs, we can use slaves again."

A 'job-killing' policy?

Many economists and small business owners fear that increasing the minimum wage would end up hurting the working poor rather than helping them, because employers who couldn't afford to pay more would be forced to cut staff.

But there's little empirical evidence to suggest that raising the minimum wage causes companies to cut back on hiring, according to Heidi Shierholz, labor economist for the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank.

In fact, one study conducted by Alan Krueger, President Obama's pick for his next chief economic adviser, found little difference in employment levels of fast food industries in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, which have different minimum wages.

"When you look at surveys of businesses, they consistently list weak demand as the key problem holding hiring back. Wages are nowhere near the major concern for employers," Paul Sonn, legal co-director of the National Employment Law Project Action Fund. "They may not realize it but raising the minimum wage would help sales and help them increase their hiring."

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/27/news/economy/minimum_wage_jobs/index.htm

thanks for the explanation. I did not know that raising labor costs does not affect employment. Since that is the case Congress should raise the minimum wage to $75. I mean we need to get money to the poor and employment will remain the same.

[RockStar]

"There was a time where as a server that was the best job you could have. … The money is just getting worse and worse and worse, every season."

Kids, stay in school and get an education and do something with your life!

Wow. That's an ignorant statement. Waiting tables or working in a bar usually gives people the opportunity to pursue passions that a lot of people take for granted (being a writer/artist/musician/filmmaker/stripper). It's also an industry a lot of people are passionate about (fortunately for you). So to to tell someone to get an education and do something with their life is just ridiculous. Maybe you waited tables once. Maybe you sucked at it. For some it's a career they enjoy.

As for the declaring tips issue, once upon a time people paid in cash. Now it's all plastic and 100% of your CC tips HAVE to be declared or the business owner will get audited. Uncle Sam wants his cut, your cut, my cut and everyone else's cut. And apparently they want a couple more dollars from the service industry because too many waiters drive Ferraris.

[Purplebike]

Probably not a popular opinion, but $4.65 is probably too high of a minimum wage anyway for servers who a) get tipped, and b) likely don't report 100% of those tips anyway. The woman in the article has been a server for 20 years, and for many of those years, as she said, the money was good. If she would have chosen to put even a fraction of that money aside and pursue some higher education or the acquisition of a more lucrative skill, she wouldn't be in the position she is. Actions (or in her case inactions), have consequences. It's not the government's responsiblity to protect someone who chooses to spend 20 years refilling ice tea pitchers and peddling greasy spaghetti. If that's what she loves to do, that's great, but she needs to be realistic in not expecting much in the way of lifestyle.

What she also fails to take into account is the obvious fact that if the minimum wage for servers goes down, the demand for servers will go up. Restaurants have been cutting servers hours left and right, and this change might actually allow them to give some of those hours back. She might make less money per hour, but there is a very good chance that she will have the opportunity to work more hours as a result, and reap the benefit of the extra tips those hours provide.

Servers work hard (I did it for two years myself, at roughly a $2 an hour minimum wage), but no harder than the stock boys at Publix, the gas station attendents, the ditch diggers, the cook at McDonalds, and all of the others who work for the minimum wage.

"If she would have chosen to put even a fraction of that money aside and pursue some higher education or the acquisition of a more lucrative skill, she wouldn't be in the position she is."

Higher education does not guarantee lucrative employment.

The acquisition of more lucrative skills does not guarantee lucrative employment either.

"It's not the government's responsiblity to protect someone who chooses to spend 20 years refilling ice tea pitchers and peddling greasy spaghetti"

This is a gross generalization of the server profession.

It is indeed the government's job to uphold fair and just payment practices. If it can be shown that this practice is unjust, then it is indeed the government's job to correct it. All workers deserve just pay. No matter what the profession.

Perhaps moving away from tips, and moving towards servers being paid a regular hourly wage is the solution. But that is a different case than the one you are trying to make. Suggesting servers deserve lower wages, because they have chosen the serving profession, is not a strong argument.

At any rate, I think your case will be stronger if you avoid overgeneralizing, and if you avoid characterizing the profession so uncharitably. Both weaken your case.

[Purplebike]

...also, many hospitality workers work their way on up into management positions, and even go on to open their own places up. Hospitality is a great career. It is not taken very seriously here, but in other cities, like in Miami, Chicago, Seattle, NYC, and so on, it is a quite highly esteemed career, from many perspectives.

[avonjax]

thank you purplebike that was perfectly stated.
And I don't know anyone who can really live on minimum wage anyway.

[Brian Siebenschuh]

Secondly, with schooling, where there is a will, there is a way. If someone lets a $2 decrease in server wages prevent them from completing school and is instead forced into a life of indentured servitude at Applebees, they probably wouldn't have been that successful in the workforce to begin with.

On the flipside, if a restaurant owner can't make his business model work without a $2 decrease in server wages and is instead forced into bankruptcy, he probably shouldn't have opened a restaurant in the first place?

[FayeforCure]

Secondly, with schooling, where there is a will, there is a way. If someone lets a $2 decrease in server wages prevent them from completing school and is instead forced into a life of indentured servitude at Applebees, they probably wouldn't have been that successful in the workforce to begin with.

On the flipside, if a restaurant owner can't make his business model work without a $2 decrease in server wages and is instead forced into bankruptcy, he probably shouldn't have opened a restaurant in the first place?

So true.

And another thing people forget is that the purchasing power of the minimum wage has already eroded since 1968.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774473.html

It s at a level of slightly half of what it was in 1968 adjusted for inflation, but Republicans are still intent on lowering it even more!

How low must it get before we term it slave labor?

There is a lot of propaganda that goes along with justifying inhumane conditions in the US:

Lower wages

The terms "employee" or "worker" have often been replaced by "associate". This plays up the allegedly voluntary nature of the interaction, while playing down the subordinate status of the wage laborer, as well as the worker-boss class distinction emphasized by labor movements.[original research?]

Billboards, as well as TV, Internet and newspaper advertisements, consistently show low-wage workers with smiles on their faces, appearing happy.[citation needed]

Job interviews and other data on requirements for lower skilled workers in developed countriesâ€"particularly in the growing service sectorâ€"indicate that the more workers depend on low wages, and the less skilled or desirable their job is, the more employers screen for workers without better employment options and expect them to feign unremunerative motivation. Such screening and feigning may not only contribute to the positive self-image of the employer as someone granting desirable employment, but also signal wage-dependence by indicating the employee's willingness to feign, which in turn may discourage the dissatisfaction normally associated with job-switching or union activity.[citation needed]

At the same time, employers in the service industry have justified unstable, part-time employment and low wages by playing down the importance of service jobs for the lives of the wage laborers (e.g. just temporary before finding something better, student summer jobs etc.).[90][improper synthesis?]

In the early 20th century, "scientific methods of strikebreaking"[91] were devisedâ€"employing a variety of tactics that emphasized how strikes undermined "harmony" and "Americanism".[92]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery

How much longer are we pretending to be a civilized society while we allow all civil protections to be eroded?

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Brian - how many times have you ever had to cut a check to 'make-up' the difference of one of your servers making less than minimum wage?

For that matter - any actual resauranteur who cares to respond - Have you EVER had to cut an extra check to a server, above and beyond the $2.13/hr?

If you did, you need to step your game up or fire the server - because obviously something's not working.

Jesus Christ, people.  $80 sales/hour x 10% = $8/hr in tips + $2.13/hr from the restaurant - that's about $10/hr based on a 10% tipping method.  Who fucking tips only 10%???  Canadians?!?     Tea-Drinking Baptist?  Euros?

Serving is a sales position, and the more you sell, the more you make.  If you're relying on the restaurant to help you out to minimum wage, you probably should find another line of work for one of two reasons:  You Suck at Life or the restaurant doesn't have any business; in which case you need to be looking for another job anyhow.

The only thing I see happening is that the restaurants are going to end up doubling their labor cost for the FOH and raise their prices accordingly - NOBODY IS TRULY BENEFITTING FROM THIS BILL EXCEPT FOR THE INSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE WRITING IT - in the form of a greater share of payroll taxes, insurance premiums, etc...  paid by the restaurant. 

[mtraininjax]

Settle down everyone, Faye neglected to add this piece to her story, may not have known she was NOT getting the full story:

The bill (SB 2106), approved by a Senate committee Thursday, would allow restaurants and other employers to pay their staffs the federal tipped minimum wage of $2.13 an hour instead of Florida's minimum of $4.65. To qualify, companies would have to guarantee that employees would make at least $9.98 an hour, when tips are included.

Not all businesses can guarantee that their employees make at least $9.98 per hour. Not as big of a deal as first thought.

[mtraininjax]

Waiting tables or working in a bar usually gives people the opportunity to pursue passions that a lot of people take for granted

I know a lot of maids and hotel housekeepers who cannot speak a lick of English, I am sure they came to America to make cleaning a career. Not saying that there are not career waiters and servers, I just do not know of any, nor do I know of hotel housekeeping staff who said when they were younger, "I want to clean rooms for a living".

[skooba]

P.S.P.S.

The most important aspect was left out of the original article above:

The bill (SB 2106) allows restaurants and other employers to pay their staffs the federal tipped minimum wage of $2.13 an hour instead of Florida's minimum of $4.65, only if companies guarantee that employees would make at least $9.98 an hour, when tips are included. If employees earn less than $9.98 an hour, the company would be responsible for making up the difference.

Less-expensive restaurants have the option to and will likely keep paying $4.65 an hour, because they couldn't guarantee their employees would make enough in tips.

If the OP put that in the title or first post, it wouldn't come off as sensationalist as it did. 

I waited tables and bartended for 5 years.  I was paid $2.13/hour (gasp!) and I always made well over minimum wage, very often pulling in $20-$25/hr based on how well I worked.  I honestly do not see the outrage on this (non)issue.