This article is absurd in that this type of work is neither as good or as bad as anything remotely described here. Being a waiter, myself for 24 years including 3 star Michelin (NYC), was a practical, enjoyable professional job in which I dealt with the public. Guests were almost always friendly people looking to have an enjoyable time. This type of writing is bombastic and provocative but lacks any true substance. Every industry deals with the cult of personality. I'm sorry to say it but there's nothing to see here. It's just not that big a deal. - Chad Murdock
I have to agree...there are a couple of anecdotes of "inflammatory 1% behavior" and the overall style of the writing was nice, it just seems like the author is making a big deal out of basically nothing so that the NYTimes can stoke the anti-1% flames and generate more views.
It is common for two people working, even side-by-side, not to view their job the same way. I'm certain we've all experienced that. Your response to the piece, and that of the commenter you cite, is more indicative of your own mindset about the world rather than the motives of the author.
Yeah, it was my opinion. I'm glad my comment conveyed my mindset about the world. That means I was successful in expressing said opinion :)
Now, I alone can't say whether or not my opinion is right - that's why these lovely forums exist so that we can bounce ideas/anecdotes/opinions off each other!
---
For the people who are downvoting this comment: why don't you contribute your opinion so we can have a discussion? A Socratic dialectic? A good old knowledge swap? Spin me a yarn!
This intense, insecure need to be statistically, beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt RIGHT (whatever that means) all of the time is killing/derailing countless discussions around HN.
The rules of the forum are simple: have an opinion, don't be a dick. Leave a comment so we can learn from each other.
I love the commenters describing it as being like a scene from Bonfire of the Vanities or serving Egyptian pharaohs. Speaking from experience, there are plenty of poor people that are at least as aloof, entitled and rude to service staff as rich people, often times even worse. And corporate restaurants/stores mimic the same patterns as shown here, you just get paid less and treated worse.
> Speaking from experience, there are plenty of poor people that are at least as aloof, entitled and rude to service staff as rich people, often times even worse.
Yup. One of my brothers was a waiter for many years in a town where it was easy to tell the lower classes from the upper; it wasn't just common for him to receive no or little tip when he waited on members of the lower classes, it was the rule. In years, I don't believe he could count on one hand the number of times he received more than a dollar (on tabs of tens or hundreds) or a piece of mucus smeared on the receipt (yes, you read that right).
People are people, and many people are jerks. Money or lack of money just gives them different outlets to be jerks.
OK, but this is not Japan, and if you are skipping or skimping on tips here in the US, chances are you're screwing over a relatively poor person. US law allows restaurants to pay waiters and waitresses well below minimum wage, under the assumption that their tips will make up the difference.
How about doing it the other way around? The restaurant includes a fixed percentage charge for the service on all items, announces it prominently, requites waiters to refuse any additional tips.
One can argue that, because the advertised prices would be, say, 18% higher, the restaurant would fail due to customers preferring restaurants with lower advertised prices. But at least the experiment could be run in this case in a more or less ethical manner (costs to the business itself could be absorbed by a speculative insurer that is convinced business will not decrease for that particular restaurant). Might not even matter for really high end restaurants, since they don't advertise prices anyways.
If you make less than minimum wage because you're not getting enough tips, your employer is legally supposed to pay you the difference so that you would still make the minimum. Whether places actually abide by those laws is a different story I imagine.
While this is true, waiters, particularly in higher-end establishments tend to make much more than minimum. It's small comfort that your manager has to create a floor if you're used to $15/hr and due to some bad tippers you end up at $10/hr for the night.
"US law allows restaurants to pay waiters and waitresses well below minimum wage, under the assumption that their tips will make up the difference."
Except on the West Coast... Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Minnesota and Montana all have the same minimum wage for tipped and non-tipped employees.
Probably not, because assholes like me make it a point to tip anyone who does me any personal service, even when abroad, and even when it isn't of a profession that typically demands it.
I don't know why I do it, and I don't really attempt to justify it beyond "This guy did something nice for me and made me believe he enjoyed it, so that is worth at least something" mixed with not wanting to worry about whether or not a tip is expected.
Apologies if I'm screwing up life for everybody else. I do at least pocket tips when I'm told that they aren't required/desired/expected/wanted, but I would much rather err on the side of over-tipping than under.
Most developed countries have a minimum hourly wage.
Here in Ireland for example it would be illegal to pay someone less.
I still tip the pizza delivery guy though. I guess cus they are providing a service directly to me. I suppose pizaa delivery is a pretty low paying job and I have a pretty cool decently paying job so I'm just being nice.
One, I'm more willing to forgive those with less privilege for errors of ignorance or misplaced reactions to trauma. Part of what privilege gets you is space to learn and to work our your issues.
Two, poor people can't afford to buy much in the way of service, so their ability to mistreat other poor people is limited. The richer the person, though, the more personal service they can consume, and the more power they have over those workers.
No. Just no. Poor or rich, if you go out then human decency is a requirement. If you go out, have the cash for the tip. Justifying poor behavior because someone is poor or rich relieves them of personal responsibility. My family was poor for a while, and I was always taught to respect people[1].
1) unless they became a danger or acted like fools, then protect everyone else from them
If I were justifying bad behavior, that would be a reasonable concern. Good thing I'm not.
Yes, one should always tip. But my brother, who was a waiter for many years, was very tolerant of poor people from subcultures where tipping was uncommon or mysterious. Accepting that not everybody can yet play at your level isn't justifying bad behavior.
there are plenty of poor people that are at least as aloof, entitled and rude to service staff as rich people
We need a reverse Yelp that reviews humans rather than businesses. So many people fail to follow the Golden Rule in simple, everyday interactions for no discernible advantage to themselves at the cost of dignity, respect and efficiency.
Some customers you don't want. And the customer is not always right. A sort of trade embargo in response to poor behavior would be interesting.
> We need a reverse Yelp that reviews humans rather than businesses.
I'd like that for drivers. My vehicle should be aware of the vehicles nearby and the likely drivers thereof, and present me with a HUD showing the poorly-reviewed in red.
I have often imagined a dashcam that does license plate recognition and lets you know when shitty drivers are nearby. And of course, it would have voice response so you could give nearby cars compliments and public grumbles. Presumably you'd also want it to be geosensitive and real time, so that it could say, "Hey, there's a lunatic coming up behind you."
Seems like it would be easy to put together a dash stand, some OpenCV magic, and a little glue logic to get a prototype together.
No no no! Hopefully you guys are joking. This is another case of geeks thinking technology and public shaming will cure us all of bad human behaviour. Cynically I think you'll get funding.
Actually that's a bloody brilliant idea. In an ideal world, morality or enlightened self-interest would convince everyone to behave well. The real world falls far short of that ideal, but social pressure is often a powerful tool for filling in the gaps. You'd think "you might die" would deter drunk drivers, but it didn't. "Everyone will think you're an asshole" was more effective. Let's extend that to other forms of misbehaviour on the road. The point here isn't the technology. It's using the technology to save lives.
Our current version of this in the US is a system where there are a much smaller number of observers (cops). Too many bad observations and you face license suspensions.
In practice, the small number of observers means that there are plenty of bad drivers who have long periods of bad behavior with no negative feedback. Basically all I'm suggesting here is increasing frequency of observation while reducing the size of the penalty from "large ticket" to "mild shame".
It's also approximately equivalent to what happens in a small community. There if you are a bad driver, word will get around and eventually get back to you. That doesn't seem like a terrible dynamic to me.
A psychiatrist acquaintance told me some people almost reflexively lose control and must take advantage of a chance to belittle someone in a customer/server scenario.
I think this reverse Yelp you describe is coming soon, partially because I plan on helping to build it. A "trade embargo" can be an effective punishment of last resort for any sort of bad behavior, from crime to a failure to contribute to a particular public good. You could use it to take collective action where the state won't, or maybe eventually to replace the state without needing to use force.
You could store people's cryptographic identities and reputations on a global computer than anyone can access, but with rules that no one can break. That now exists, and it's called Ethereum.
An embargo is a pretty harsh punishment, though. In practice, you'd probably only use it when someone fails to provide some lesser form of restitution.
I've considered this several times before, with similar concerns. The solution that seems like it would mitigate these problems is to have contextual social ratings, rather than global ratings. If I indicate the people that I trust, and transitively trust, then I can see indications of misbehaviour from my social network, rather than "some abusive asshole is rating people poorly for not indulging him enough".
Unfortunately, this reminds me of PGP's web of trust, and that never really took off. It may be that it failed entirely due to other issues (pgp's terrible UI, encryption is hard and nobody cares), but it's not a great sign.
Someone (Airbnb?) was trying to use Facebook login as a similar web of trust, as a proxy for real-world social pressure to be a reasonable human being. I don't think PGP really says anything here, positive or negative, when we have Facebook, which is far far bigger and much more tuned to actual, ongoing social connections.
(and this coming from someone with a key in the strong set, and no Facebook account)
Many metropolitan areas in .uk have a shared blacklist used by a group of bars - get thrown out of one permanently, don't try and join any of the others.
I've encountered a number of people sanctioned by that system who still believe in it overall.
An Uber driver told me that customers are rated for exactly this reason. If a customer score is deemed too low when requesting a ride, then Uber drivers will tend to be a tad slower to accept the ride in the hopes another driver will pick it up instead.
I assumed the difference they are picking up on and the one that prompted the comparison is the culture of pretending that excellence at this job is meaningful. The large teams of people and the rules of the dance also make it very clear that you are not there to ensure a pleasant and efficient "dining experience". You are very much also there to act subservient and to be used as the object of a status display. The fact that you have a "bullshit job" is constantly thrown in your face.
And there is certainly one difference I've noticed between the crap treatment of employees at an average place and top end. The entitled lower or middle class asshole will berate a server because they screwed something up that is simple, with the assumption that they could have done it correctly if they cared. Much more likely to get the reaction of "oh dear, you aren't even of good enough breeding to be an acceptable servant" at the high end places.
And the people who act that way at an average restaurant are disliked by the majority of people, another table might say "Wow, what an ass. Sorry you have to deal with that." At somewhere like this you get treated that way by the people who your entire society has decided are worth listening to and who's opinions and judgement are highly valued.
This comment doesn't mesh at all with my experience at any high-end NYC restaurant, including the place where this guy worked.
The staff isn't subservient; they've got some expertise, so they steer and make recommendations so you'd have a better experience than you'd have deciding independently.
The patrons quite evidently aren't just 'the people who your entire society has decided are worth listening to', since they also include people who sit around reading Hacker News (as well as a good smattering of tourists and couples celebrating their anniversary.)
And finally, if you're an ass to the staff, everyone around you still unambiguously knows and thinks you're an ass.
It's interesting how much it really is a problem of alienation, not of the work itself.
Stage magicians who obsessively practice the same motion over and over own their work, own their output, and feel empowered by the hard work and the success it brings.
Waiters who do the same thing because a larger machine they do not identify with dictates it feel disconnected.
The work itself is a distraction from the real problem, which is that the employee does not believe that what they are doing is important or valuable and that they don't feel ownership over their own actions.
In high-school I worked in a restaurant. Not high-end, but decent enough that some customers expected a lot. Most customers were respectable human beings, but there were a few sad and pathetic misanthropes who acted as though paying money gave them absolute power over you. Those customers were enough to make the job feel a bit like prostitution. At a high end restaurant I'd imagine this effect is intensified, both by the amount of dollars changing hands and the discipline of the staff.
It's a shame that it would never work in today's world, but the ancient Roman holiday of Saturnalia is something direly needed today. If the ultra-rich spent one day a year in service to wage-slaves who normally serve them, it might make the rest of the year feel a little less empty for people like the author of this article.
You "imagine" the effect is intensified but you don't actually have any evidence to support it. I've also worked at a restaurant as a waiter. Despite it being a very low end buffet where the food was cheap and wages low I identify completely with the article (except nobody had a stroke while I was working). The only real difference was that the author and his co-workers were much better at their jobs than me and my own co-workers.
Wealth is a big red herring in this story, but I guess its a story no one would be interested in without.
I think that's the problem for many (if not most) people who are satisfied with their job--a lack of autonomy and ownership.
For example, take fry cook A, who works at Wendy's, and fry cook B, who works at an independent restaurant where the owner gives him a good deal of creative control.
Fry cook B's job is to make the best damn hamburger he can, and he get's to use his brain a bit. Fry cook A's job is to make the exact same hamburger as every other cook at every other Wendy's in the country.
Most humans just aren't very happy trying their best to act like a robot.
It wasn't a hard routine to master. You showed up. You read the article. Then you clicked on the text box, and you write one of a few thoughts: "I love how this exposes the vacuousness of the fine dining experience". Or: "The story about the Chinese businessman confirms something I have long suspected, that paying more for a meal is no an evidence of a soul." With a little practice, you can almost pass it off as original. You act surprised. You act indignant. You act informed.
Then you click add comment. That's it. Simple. Mechanical. Of course, beneath the mechanical gestures lurks an ugly truth. It was something you didn't talk about. You just did your job - occasionally, you would get some karma for it. That soon wore off. I wondered: is this what it feels like to be one of the liberated intelligentsia? Would Engels have strained his relationship with his mother so that he could defend my right to "take it easy"? Is this what we have fought for?
To be sure, I was a glorious member of a liberated proletariat: nobody got "surplus value" from my comment. The karma was mine.
But sometimes, for just a glimmer of a moment, in those seconds after I clicked "add comment" I was left facing the ugly truth, there in black and white. It was because there was no value there at all.
The article doesn't name the restaurant, but the author's LinkedIn profile says he worked at Eleven Madison Park. This makes some of the details seem more believable. Felix Salmon: "they’re IN THE CREDIT SUISSE building ferchrissakes of COURSE there were douchebankers at the bar"
The joys of LinkedIn. The author [0] was captain at Eleven Madison Park [1]. I've never been there, but back when I had an expense account job, the few similar spots I'd been to in NYC were mostly old fogies quietly eating dinner with their spouses. Occasionally you'll have folks on dates amusing themselves on their iPhones.
Also we design out societies incrementally all the time, in all sorts of ways. Introducing new legislation and repealing old ones being one small example. Also some societies work markedly better than others and theres huge amounts of data to support that. As a very crude indication you could compare countries quality of life vs GDP. Countries with a higher quality of life / GDP are using their resources more efficiently to improve their citizena quality of life.
In a well-designed society my wife and I can't voluntarily decide to save up and have a really nice dinner for our anniversary? What kind of person is this designer?
Yeah, that occured to me. My thoughts arent terribly clear on this, but where i am is.. Stuff like, this restarant, bugatti veyrons, luxury yachts etc. shouldnt exist. Producing them is massivley wasteful of resources and they require huge inequality to be viable.
Im sure theres a sustainable, fair, socially responsible way to celebrate your anniversary with a nice dinner, but not whats described in the article, that is insane overkill.
A $215 meal at a restaurant is a far cry from a Bugatti. I'm a software dev in the Midwest and I've eaten at Alinea, which is comparable in price and quality. You don't have to be a banker or hedge funder manager to enjoy good food, and I'm not sure what is so socially irresponsible about running a nice restaurant.
It sounds to me that the author is simply not a good fit for the job.
It would appear that someone who is a graduate student in literature doesn't think that they were put on this earth to serve food to others. Hence he's just projecting his dissatisfaction with poor career choice on the people he is supposed to serve.
Some solid misandry here...From the article, last 2 paragraphs:
>"It turns out there are a lot of upsides to being a woman. You get to hang out with women. You >don’t have to hang out with men. You don’t have to condescend to people about things like ice. >You notice other people’s reactions to you. People consider you safe enough to tell you their >problems. You get to smile at kids you don’t know. You get to hang out with women. You get to >hang out with women. Your whole life. Between the old guys congratulating themselves for being >able to drop 700 dollars on an ounce of 40 year old scotch, or my mom getting goofy on ice wine >with her retired nurse friends, I know who’s throwing the better party.
>
>
>The well-meaning among you might be tempted to explain to me, hey you could hang out with women >who went to women’s colleges and still get called he or they or ze or hir or you might want to >explain to me that there are so many good dudes who are transforming what it means to be a dude, >and I could join in and transform it with them. Nope. No thanks. I think estrogen is good deal. I >think this female thing is a good deal. Even with the rape and the gas-lighting and the poverty >and the shitty jobs and the sexual harassment and the doing all the housework and the watching >jokers kill the planet and the regular ice, this womanhood thing is where it’s at. Those ice >balls have melted. I’m good."
What some people do not realise is that men wouldn't do what they do with accumulating status and wealth, if women didn't reward them with sex for it.
> What some people do not realise is that men wouldn't do what they do with accumulating status and wealth, if women didn't reward them with sex for it.
That's ridiculous. It's not even true. It fails to be true in many ways: There are plenty of men who accumulate status and wealth even though they'll be having exactly the same amount of sex. There are lots of women who accumulate status and wealth, and women definitely aren't rewarding them with sex. You can in fact find plenty of people pursuing status and wealth who do so at a level where it reduces the amount of sex they get. And equally there are people of both genders who get lots of sex without much in the way of status or wealth.
But worse, it's morally vacuous to the point of being creepy. It's like saying mafia hit-men are perfectly fine people because they are just responding to commercial incentives. Nope! People are responsible for the effects of their actions. Sometimes bad actions are rewarding, which is why we have morality in the first place. If bad actions were never rewarding, they wouldn't be a problem. You can't just shrug and blame "the system" for the shitty things you do. If you do shitty things, you are the one doing them and you are to blame.
This article is absurd in that this type of work is neither as good or as bad as anything remotely described here. Being a waiter, myself for 24 years including 3 star Michelin (NYC), was a practical, enjoyable professional job in which I dealt with the public. Guests were almost always friendly people looking to have an enjoyable time. This type of writing is bombastic and provocative but lacks any true substance. Every industry deals with the cult of personality. I'm sorry to say it but there's nothing to see here. It's just not that big a deal. - Chad Murdock
I have to agree...there are a couple of anecdotes of "inflammatory 1% behavior" and the overall style of the writing was nice, it just seems like the author is making a big deal out of basically nothing so that the NYTimes can stoke the anti-1% flames and generate more views.