If the server decides that I don't look right, they can choose not to serve me and I have to wait for a manager to serve me?
You know that Denny's lost a $54 million lawsuit over this practice, right? Racial profiling in the hospitality biz is very real.
So, no, even if we (weirdly) stipulate the idea that creepers are a protected class, the Denny's situation is not comparable to what's happening here.
"In 2015, the Washington Post examined tipping culture in the US restaurant industry. Looking at a survey of 1,000 servers, 34 percent responded that they believed black diners to be "very bad" tippers, in comparison to white diners who 98 percent believed to be "average" or "above average" tippers."
"In the first study where white servers believed black diners were "very bad" tippers, over half of those who responded said they "don't always give their best effort when waiting on black customers.""
I absolutely loved your optimism and single-step, hand-wavey-approach to solving racism, though.
"In a world where nobody's racist, nobody will be racist! It's perfect!"
And it's notable that approach runs counter to all of the retaliation-based approaches that this society currently seems to enjoy.
Yeah I like that part. Maybe the customer is having a bad hair day, maybe they are autistic or homeless. There is no need to kick them out or confront them if they haven't said or done anything bad. Just have a way to quickly pass the handling to someone else and move on.
Assuming you did mean the former, I find it fascinating that your comment went from not looking right to racial profiling which seem completely unrelated.
What made you think of that?
The point is, if you interpret the policy properly, it's plainly obvious that a server can label someone a yellow (for any reason) and choose not to serve them.
Lots of servers have preconceived notions about who is going to tip well.
That's sort of how these systems perpetuate isn't it?
Maybe if you just had to just stfu and deal with serving everyone, you get the opportunity to realize that X person isn't bad and actually does tip.
> Maybe if you just had to just stfu and deal with serving everyone, you get the opportunity to realize that X person isn't bad and actually does tip.
That's the current situation though, right? Seems like it's not working.
For someone in the industry that you're/we're in, I'm a little bit surprised by your level of optimism; in this case, that a loosely-defined social system works as intended when almost always strictly defined encoded systems (software, hardware, legal, etc) do not. Either the intended system is not accurately defined or it didn't expect everything.
Almost all of my peers/coworkers in infosec are extraordinarily pessimistic, see the flaws first, and from very far away.
The entire restaurant business is propped up by investor money and artificially low wages. We have a large multiple more restaurants than we actually need because it serves Wall St. and the government ("job creation").
Such a change could put 80% of the industry out of business in maybe a year.
And worse, the places where people have smaller dine-out budgets are also where all of the low-wage chain restaurants are clustered. All of those youth and unskilled labor jobs in the suburbs are pretty much in restaurants.
It's inexcusable that people in restaurants are being exploited for their labor, but I think we absolutely have to figure out an alternative before putting them out of work.
If you give wait staff a normal wage, restaurants have to have more workers on hand when it's less busy and there are more other labor laws regarding wage and hour minimums that they'll lose exemptions from.
Over having the manager serve people? Do you have some reference that explains what you're referring to?
In practice, if the manager sees that server X often/always calls yellow on group Y, it becomes the manager's job to educate, train, or fire server X.
The problems with the described practice are pretty apparent if you've ever a) worked in tipped food service or b) been black.
And that wouldn't have to be a consequence of this policy. It would, however, require the manager to be as prompt as the server. This should be possible to do if they're paying attention to the issue, because the manager should be handling far fewer tables than a server.
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-05-25/news/mn-62027_1_civil...
Alas, the actual examples aren't fully enumerated (to the tune of some 4,500 complaints). The syntax of "slow service" in the cited examples is in seating customers.