[DRAFT] Protecting the Wages of Tipped Workers

[The Forest of Aeneas]

Ambassador Cecilia Maro. ' 'Minimum wages' can very easily be read as referring to government-enforced minimum wages. Why not just use the word 'wages'? However, the issue with this approach (both as-is and if 'minimum' is removed) is that it does not prevent the wages from being lower ab initio.'

'Below is a proposed rewrite of this mandate if Mr. Russell wishes to use it.'

hereby declares that no employer may use an employee's tipped status as direct or indirect justification for lower wages.

[Bananaistan]

"The current "requirement" is so vague as to be almost useless. "Lower wages". Lower than what?"

[Northeast Atlantica]

How about paying workers enough in the first place so that tips are neither necessary, nor expected?

It is not the responsibility of an establishment's patrons to pay their workers for them. If an establishment needs to raise their prices in order to pay their workers well, then that is what needs to happen. Cheap goods are not a right.

[WayNeacTia]

How about paying workers enough in the first place so that tips are neither necessary, nor expected?

It is not the responsibility of an establishment's patrons to pay their workers for them. If an establishment needs to raise their prices in order to pay their workers well, then that is what needs to happen. Cheap goods are not a right.

Thus inflation continues unchecked like a boulder rolling down a hill.....

[Minskiev]

Bump

[Attempted Socialism]

Perhaps I am confused, but with the current wording what kind of employee would be the comparison for deciding the formerly tipped worker's wage? If it's an employee doing a non-comparable job, I don't see that hold up, but if it's another tipped worker their wage is presumably similarly artificially lowered, and the comparable wage of a non-tipped worker is presumably nil, since they (And their hypothetical wage) don't exist.

Additionally, if it's decided (For classist reasons, say) that servers and waiters simply deserve lower wage generally, it's not their tips that are used to justify their lower wage, even if the only way to survive on meager pay is getting tipped. Would that be complying -- irrespective of good- or bad-faith compliance -- with the wording of the draft?

Furthermore, if wage is negotiated, either directly with the employee or between employers and the unions, would an explicit reduction in wage justified because of tips be legal, since it is no longer the employer who is lowering the wage?

[Bananaistan]

Perhaps I am confused, but with the current wording what kind of employee would be the comparison for deciding the formerly tipped worker's wage? If it's an employee doing a non-comparable job, I don't see that hold up, but if it's another tipped worker their wage is presumably similarly artificially lowered, and the comparable wage of a non-tipped worker is presumably nil, since they (And their hypothetical wage) don't exist.

Additionally, if it's decided (For classist reasons, say) that servers and waiters simply deserve lower wage generally, it's not their tips that are used to justify their lower wage, even if the only way to survive on meager pay is getting tipped. Would that be complying -- irrespective of good- or bad-faith compliance -- with the wording of the draft?

Furthermore, if wage is negotiated, either directly with the employee or between employers and the unions, would an explicit reduction in wage justified because of tips be legal, since it is no longer the employer who is lowering the wage?

All this needs to be addressed. If there's a problem with low wages for tipped workers, then it's likely to apply across a domestic economy. Thus there's no comparable non-tipped worker.

[Lile Ulie Islands]

[spoiler=Tip Credits][box]Protecting the Wages of Tipped Workers
Regulation; Labour Rights
[*]Mandates that:
[list=a][*]tip credits must:
[list=i][*]not be more than 20% of a worker’s regular pay;

I am a slight bit confused here. So if a worker's regular pay was $100/mo., I could not tip over $20?

[Makko Oko]

not be more than 20% of a worker’s regular pay

"And who in the ever-loving hell came up with this load of stench? As it stands, we would be against this resolution regardless due to the fact that we have no minimum wage, but this is just unbearable and would turn even the staunchest supporter of this...this...this atrocity...into a hater immediately. 100% against, and while you're at it, work in the service industry for a month and see how you like getting limited on your tipping percentages." - Alora Hakjova, Makko Oko Minister Of Diplomatic Affairs

[WayNeacTia]

[spoiler=Tip Credits][box]Protecting the Wages of Tipped Workers
Regulation; Labour Rights
[*]Mandates that:
[list=a][*]tip credits must:
[list=i][*]not be more than 20% of a worker’s regular pay;

I am a slight bit confused here. So if a worker's regular pay was $100/mo., I could not tip over $20?

Can you imagine trying to enforce this on the sex industry? I can just picture a stripper having to tell someone they can't stuff a hundred dollar bill down their underwear, because it would exceed 20% of their daily wages.....

[Lile Ulie Islands]

I am a slight bit confused here. So if a worker's regular pay was $100/mo., I could not tip over $20?

Can you imagine trying to enforce this on the sex industry? I can just picture a stripper having to tell someone they can't stuff a hundred dollar bill down their underwear, because it would exceed 20% of their daily wages.....

You have a point here. I'd support this bill, but I do think it needs to be less broad. There are many, many workers out there. What about waiters/waitresses, those are the first that come to my mind when thinking about tipping. So (to Minskiev), what about narrowing down the topic, because what Wayneactia said has a point.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Opposed until we see a" just the tip" joke incorporated."

[Minskiev]

[spoiler=Tip Credits][box]Protecting the Wages of Tipped Workers
Regulation; Labour Rights
[*]Mandates that:
[list=a][*]tip credits must:
[list=i][*]not be more than 20% of a worker’s regular pay;

I am a slight bit confused here. So if a worker's regular pay was $100/mo., I could not tip over $20?

I am very confused by the false criticism.

A tip credit is not a tip. A tip credit, as defined earlier in the proposal (which, ftr, is secondary, and likely not what I'll be submitting), is "an amount of a worker’s regular pay that the worker’s employer does not have to pay if the worker receives the pay amount through tips". Meaning that workers would receive at *least* 80% of the minimum wage, and NOT that tips cannot be over 20% of a worker's regular pay.

[Mesogiria]

Hereby declares that no employer, arbitrator, or any authority over the wages of an employee may use the tips that an employee receives or the job (that happens to receive tips) of an employee as direct or indirect justification (excluding the employee losing their job) for lower wages for that employee than an employee in a non-tipped job that has a similar set of qualifications.

This sentence really twists itself around in knots trying to get to the point, which I think is unnecessary. You're trying to say that a tipped employee cannot be paid less than a non-tipped employee, right? You don't need to specify things like losing a job, you just need to declare what you don't want to happen:

"No tipped worker shall have their regular compensation reduced as a consequence of the amount of tips they receive."

and

"No tipped worker shall have their regular compensation fixed at a lower level than that of an equivalent non-tipped worker as a consequence of their status as a tipped worker."

Come up with a definition of 'tipped worker' and I think you're good to go.

[Simone Republic]

Ambassador:

I am philosophically opposed to a minimum wage or regulations on how labourers are tipped, so I will vote against.

[Minskiev]

The draft should be somewhat cleaner, thanks to Mesogiria's suggestions.

[Bananaistan]

The comparative "non-tipped worker whose job has a similar set of qualifications" still renders the whole thing meaningless. As I said above, if there's a problem with low wages for tipped workers, then it's likely to apply across a domestic economy. Thus there's no comparable non-tipped worker.

[Attempted Socialism]

Perhaps I am confused, but with the current wording what kind of employee would be the comparison for deciding the formerly tipped worker's wage? If it's an employee doing a non-comparable job, I don't see that hold up, but if it's another tipped worker their wage is presumably similarly artificially lowered, and the comparable wage of a non-tipped worker is presumably nil, since they (And their hypothetical wage) don't exist.

Additionally, if it's decided (For classist reasons, say) that servers and waiters simply deserve lower wage generally, it's not their tips that are used to justify their lower wage, even if the only way to survive on meager pay is getting tipped. Would that be complying -- irrespective of good- or bad-faith compliance -- with the wording of the draft?

Furthermore, if wage is negotiated, either directly with the employee or between employers and the unions, would an explicit reduction in wage justified because of tips be legal, since it is no longer the employer who is lowering the wage?

After a quick read-over, like Banana, I still think these issues persist. If you disagree, can you elaborate on each point and explain why my concerns no longer apply?