If Atlanta restaurant owner Yakup Ulutas had his way, American customers would have to pay a 20 percent gratuity tip when they dine at restaurants.
Ulutas’ idea is unfair to customers. When people tip waiters, it’s because the waiters performed their duties sufficiently. A mandatory 20 percent tip defeats the purpose of a tip, and it doesn’t work within the boundaries of a tip. If a tip is defined as something extra you give to someone, a gratuity of this size-5 percent more than a conventional tip-acts more like a tax.
Furthermore, when a waiter doesn’t know whether he will be tipped or not, the chances of a customer having better service will probably increase. However, if a waiter knows he’ll always get a 20 percent gratuity tip, he doesn’t have as much motivation to provide good service. Whereas now we can refuse to tip bad waiters to teach them a lesson, this new idea would force customers to confront managers more often. Basically, things would only get more complicated for customers, which defeats the purpose of dining out.
Obviously, waiters would benefit from this idea. But that’s only the surface. Businesses would also benefit. Restaurants are required to compensate waiters if not enough tips are made to equal minimum wage. This gratuity would virtually eliminate the need for a restaurant to compensate one of its employees. This means that the customers come dead last.
Mandating generosity is wrong. This development would give more power to businesses, more lee-way for waiters to do terrible jobs and less freedom of choice to consumers. We have a tip for Ulutas: stop asking for free handouts and refill some drinks.
The Reflector editorial board is made up of opinion editor Jed Pressgrove, news editor C.J. LeMaster, assistant news editor Keeley Tatum, entertainment editor Aaron Burdette, sports editor R.J. Morgan, online editor Sara McAdory, managing editor Ross Dellenger and editor in chief Tyler Stewart.