• deejay4am@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 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
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 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
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 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
          arrow-up
          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).