Hacker News Reader

Comment by eropple | Hacker News Reader

It's immoral not to treat people who are performing services for you fairly and well. If that means tipping, because their employer--who you chose to do business with--doesn't pay them a livable wage, then guess what? You tip. If, at the same time and in no way exclusive to the former, you would like to campaign for better worker rights and wage floors that make tipping unnecessary (or, hell, even illegal), then I will join you in that.

You might not like tipping. (Again: I don't.) The person you're rationalizing the stiffing of probably doesn't like having to work for tips. Capitalism kinda sucks and the person-to-person patching is something that more fortunate folks just plain get to do. Sorry.

View on HN

>It's immoral not to treat people who are performing services for you fairly and well. If that means tipping, because their employer--who you chose to do business with--doesn't pay them a livable wage,

It’s immoral to shop somewhere that doesn’t pay proper wages. Employees should not be dependent on your charity because a company decides to save on its tax and wage bill.

Don’t reward companies that do this. Don’t promote a race to the bottom.

Exactly. Otherwise you could make the same argument about everything - "it's not immoral to buy clothes produced by children in a sweatshop in vietnam, because those children rely on a source of income to survive!". It's exactly the same as saying that tipping is not immoral because service people depend on it.

I would think that an adult in the first world with a car has a lot more autonomy than a child in Vietnam though.

I find strange how you call him immoral for not tip while is the employer who do not pay them a liveable wage.

I don't know how to put it nicer than this: do you think that was not implied?

They are both immoral.

In a situation with 3 parties, there can be any number of immoral people from 0 to about 9 billion, so I don't know why you immediately assume that because the commenter is immoral that doesn't mean the company isn't also behaving immorally.

Specifically, the company is providing a service which depends on charity of the people receiving it to continue. Remember that charity is supposed to be voluntary. This fact is not documented anywhere. "Customary" is code word for non transparent and exploitative.

If the company wants to incentive good quality of service, they can do so explicitly with direct ratings instead of some unclear way of tips.

So then what's worse--not using the service because you don't want to tip, or using the service and not tipping?

That becomes a tough one, doesn't it? I'd say that the use of it without tipping incurs a moral burden, as you're giving the employer money and not making it right with the person who (as is true of anyone in a tipped job) depends on you upholding your part of the social contract.

You aren't saving the world by tipping--but you're not making it a worse place, and that's not nothing. Similarly, by not using a service that does its employees dirty without making it right, you are pressuring them--if, admittedly, mildly--towards decent behavior. That assumes that you make it very clear why you're doing it, and you totally should, because communication is part of ethical consumerism. (For similar reasons, when Amazon, Uber, etc. recruiters reach out to me, I underline the way they treat their workforce as a major reason as to my disinterest. It's a data point, and only one, but it's what I can do.)

You are actually making the world a worse place too by tipping - not promoting a service with transparency and acceptable terms for all parties involved. This is a second order effect but much more important than first order. (Unless you presume workers cannot reasonably switch companies which means that everyone is already screwed and serious antimonopoly steps should be taken.)

If you were not informed, then there is no moral weight for not tipping either.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com