I recently went out to dinner for my birthday with my family and we were charged 18% gratuity. The waiter never even refilled the water glasses.

I thought that is always the case for parties of 6 or more. So i think it is pretty fair. I like when they do that, it is easier and you can always add more on depending on the service. I am a person though who never leaves less than 20% no matter how bad the service.

I think it's perfectly fair to impose it on groups. Getting enough money to cover the bill + tip can be a serious endeavor sometimes. I've found some people to be tightwads and will either not put enough down to cover their bill or will not put enough down to cover the tip.

I'm not sure if it's as fair if it's imposed on small groups (3 or less). It becomes kinda insulting at that point and could potentially be less fair to the server though. If the tip is calculated and included and it's only 18% or 15%, then some people may not tip as high as they usually do.

If it's for a large party, then fair (like 6 or more), but you still have to provide good service and be attentive. Waiting on a large party is definitely more difficult and more time-consuming and can take away from other tables that you might get. But again, don't slack off b/c I've definitely had that happen to me before.

But for smaller parties, no. I want to be able to say whether or not I've received good service, and the only real way to do that is with your tip. I'd be really irritated if I went out to dinner with a girlfriend and the restaurant just decided that my service was worth an extra 18%.

I'm not a supporter...sorry.

My only problem with this is what happens when the service is bad? You either suck it up and pay or you have to call over the manager and explain.

I think the check should list the total for the meal and the suggested amount for tip. If the service was bad you don't have to leave as much or if the service was fantastic you can leave more.

A friend told me last week when he was on vacay in Chicago with his family they were at a pizza place and there were like 10 ppl and they got charged a 25% gratuity!!!!

I've never heard of anybody stiffing someone on a tip because of bad service. They may not be as generous, but I've *never* heard of anyone refusing to leave a tip, nor anyone going below a rounded-down 15% for that reason. Tipping has become such a tax and public policy issue that sensible solutions (like paying servers minimum wage and then banning tips outright) are met with incredible resistance. Those who want to be able to decide vis-a-vis the market what amount to leave as a tip should also get on board allowing the market to decide whether or not to eat at a restaurant that mandates a certain contribution (ie. don't patronize that establishment if you don't like their policy). Instead, don't jaw off on how it's your right to decide how much to leave while insisting that you eat at a certain place. I don't like being forced to pay $14 for a sandwich. But if I want to eat at Zingerman's, then I'm going to have to shell out. Don't complain about an establishment's rules and then act as if you had no choice in the matter.

i think that the 'built in' tip is something that's wrong. honestly, i'll tip if someone does a great job on my large group, but we've all been there when there was a waiter on a large party that just sucked - meaning that we never got re-fills, or we didn't get the right dishes or whatever, and i wouldn't tip nearly as much as the establishment adds on.

Well said Shoeyjoe!

If you don't like the policy, don't go. Kinda simple. If you can't afford to tip extra (whatever it says on the menu/bill) then don't eat at those places.

when I waited tables I never put in the 15%, I always found that people would tip more then that if you left it up to them... most times anyways.

I also think the built in tip is wrong, the whole premise behind leaving a tip is to give insentive to the waitstaff to do the best job possible. if its built in, where is that insentive?

I appreciate when its included for large groups, because it means less time spent calculating.

15% seems low. Servers would probably receive more if the receipts contained guidelines that list higher percentages.

I'm sure its useful for international travelers who aren't always accustomed to leaving large tips.

How old is this rule? I went to restaurant in NYC a while ago and got hit with a 15% gratuity [I think? I can't remember] b/c we were a group larger than 5.

We got HORRIBLE service specifically because the waitress knew she was getting gratuity [which was ridiculously high]. We waited 30 minutes for water [which she didn't refill until AFTER we went to the manager!], and 45 minutes to order - and the restaurant was NEARLY EMPTY. She copped an attitude when I asked if there was shrimp in one of the house dishes [I'm ALLERGIC, dammit!].

We didn't leave because we were too far from our hotel and some of the girls had to leave soon. On their way out, they went to the manager about the poor service - he took the gratuity off of our bill. She got *really* nice after that...but I don't think ANY of us left a tip for her.

I and most of the people I know usually tip anywhere from 20-30%...we have friends who wait and serve, so we know how hard it is and how much they depend on our tips. So I understand why the gratuity - BUT that should not justify not doing your job!!

Eh, I think if it's a large party, I built-in gratuity is fine. I've always been a very generous tipper and would probably leave the same amount, or more, anyway.

Not to sound catty, but I think some foreigners should have a built in tip added to their bills.

A girl I used to work with once got a 41 cent tip from a group of 12. I was working with her that night, and neither of us could think of any mistakes she had made with their service. Luckily, we had a really protective owner, who called the number on their check and told them that if they couldn't afford to tip her staff, they couldn't afford to eat at her restaurant. If you get charged automatic gratuity and have bad service, by all means, complain to the manager. But since there ARE people rude enough to leave nothing and servers' paychecks depend on tips, I'm not opposed it.

Wow, I can't believe restaurants actually do this. I wouldn't pay it. If the charge isn't part of the food I ordered, then I do NOT have to pay it!! and I would not! I tip depending on the service I get. and if its a large group I make sure everyone tips appropriately.

I've always thought that tips were a reward for good service and thus should not be mandatory to give - you only give them when you get good service! That said, I still always leave a tip, but I'm against mandatory tipping in all situations...this past weekend I was out for a friend's birthday and there were 15 of us and tip was mandatory and we got the worst service ever. Though it's unfair to generalize, by making tipping mandatory it's so much more likely for people to get bad service because there's no incentive!

Tips are to be earned, not given. I tip well. If the service doesn't warrant a gratuity, the manager will hear from me.

I'm a full supporter of this...too many large groups will come to my sports bar that I work at (I'm the bartender) and all too often I see my girls come back from their tables in tears because each of the 10 or so kids would want their bill separately, and then toss change down for their tip. Or it will be about a $150 table of a group and they'll leave a collective tip of $5. It just isn't right...

I'm okay with it for a large party, but not individuals. I tip very well for good service. My tip will reflect bad service. And for horrible service, I'll talk to the manager.

A couple of the comments make mention of being able to afford a built-in tip - I don't think it has anything to do with ability to pay, but rather willingness to have your comment on the service taken out of your hands. Of course you shouldn't go out to eat if you can't afford the tip, but that's different than a reluctance to say "Treat me however you like, and I'll give you 15% (or 18%, etc.) no matter what."

Maybe for large groups, but tips are suppost to be based on serice. You give poor service and you won't be tipped, it also is feed back from that customer. These people should just be happy that they have the option of being tipped! There are plenty of hard workers making minnimum wadge that arn't allowed tips!

Besides if a company notices that their employees need more tips, then pay they should pay their workers more not expect the rest of the world to do it!!

@ tlsgirl, I hope you're not referring to my comment regarding affording a built-in tip. My point regarding the high cost of lunch at Zingerman's was not to say that I felt that tipping was an extraneous expense, rather it was part of the hazard of patronage at a particular restaurant.

My amazement with the comments has much more to do with the number of people who say that including the gratuity in the bill robs them of the ability to control one portion of the incentive structure inherent in the tip while simultaneously relinquishing that very same incentive structure inherent as regards restaurant patronage itself. Instead of an economic example like paying higher prices for food, here's one regarding house rules. If you feel stupid wearing a jacket and tie at a restaurant that mandates it, don't go. If you feel like your choices are being co-opted by a built-in tip in a particular restaurant, same thing. The free market / incentive argument can not apply to one part of the equation (tipping) and not the other (actual restaurant choice).

My proposed solution is one that I pitched earlier - eliminate tipping and pay your servers minimum wage. The tax dodge would be eliminated, since the W2 would accurately report the income of the servers instead of an assumed percentage for tips. Additionally, this would require wholesale reform of the food service industry. Since the assumption will be proper and professional service, the onus is not on the customer to dock the server's pay but on the employer to police the service of his or her employees. What more would this require? Diligence on the part of the employer, acceptable levels of service by the waitstaff, and a shift in the assumptions of the diners that just as proper service is a non-negotiable part of what is expected, proper payment for that service is a non-negotiable obligation of the diner. In such a system, who loses in the situation of crappy service? In the short-term, the diner. But in the long term, the restauranteur, unless she is willing to axe the waiter. Again, market forces at work - just at different places in the system.

for a group dining i think its fair. i went to a restraunant with 11 other people the bill was 675 with the tip was in it. one of those german places where they sing to you. but if its a couple or with one or two friends i think its unfair. i've been to restranants where the waitress snapped at me or gave me a dirty look, i barely give them a tip. im a customer im pretty nice and dont need attitude because someone had a bad day. but when a waitress is really nice or doing her job i will give her 15-20%

If you get bad service, COMPLAIN.
I do find that build-in tips make it really difficult to split checks. Waiters are almost never willing to break the party out into individual checks because that takes away the built-in tip (and they're not allowed to, also.) It's pretty annoying and uncomfortable in a HUGE group trying to pool money together.
A LOT of my friends have been waiters/waitresses in large restaurants, and trust me, built-in tips only serve to protect the wait staff. People are jerks.

I agree that if the service was bad, let the server and the manager know.

not fair! last week my party of 12 had a 25% or so tip built in, when we waited an hour for our food and service was less than pleasant!!

I agree with Laureng22. If left to my own device I would usually tip more if the tip was not added in, however, If they want to add it in I'd like to keep my extra dollar. Thank you very much.

Oh and I disagree with Shoneyjoe. For some, waiting tables is their main source of income and they are good at it. It would be sad for someone who is making $70 an hour to be reduced to $8-10 an hour. It's a skill and if you are good at it you can make decent money. On the other hand, if you were to make it minimum wage I'm afraid you would wind up with fast-food service (they get paid no matter what so who cares if the service is bad).

Personally, I wish everyone was required to wait tables for at least a day. You would be surprised at the amount of jerks there are (jerks who for the most part have never waited a table in their life).

@ Abbigail, I'm not advocating for the minimum wage as an income ceiling, I'm advocating for the minimum wage as an income floor. You'd likely respond that currently, income is tied to skill, and that under a non-tipping system, we encourage free-riders who refuse to contribute. The problem with that argument is that while I holds for the short term, it doesn't take into account the actions of the employer in cutting useless personnel. Ultimately, it's not the fact that they'd "get paid no matter what so who cares if the service is bad," but rather if service blows and clientele drops concurrently, the owner has personnel decisions to make. The bad server isn't going to get paid if he gets fired, and once good servers become more valuable, their market pay will rise accordingly. My problem with tipping is its incentivization of income tax dodging and the tax code's response of assuming a tax dodge in the first place.

I don't know if you're calling me a jerk. And I don't know if you're suggesting I've never waited tables. Both of those assumptions are incorrect.

Shoneyjoe - nope, not your comment Although with regard to restaurant choice, it seems from the article itself that the restaurants that are building in tips for small parties aren't advertising that fact. For large parties (although I personally don't have a problem it in that situation), the policy is so widespread that you really can't avoid it.

I've noticed that service tends to suffer when the tip is built-in to the bill. That bothers me a lot. I'm a generous tipper so if I got good service I'd probably tip more than the 15% anyway. It also bothers me that people are skimping what they tip for good service in order to save some money. I understand not overtipping, but give credit where credit is due.

I agree with you, tls. It's difficult to avoid this policy sometimes. Additionally, when you go out to dinner on a Saturday night and wait 30 minutes for a table even with a reservation, it's not like you are going to be willing to leave when you sit down and see the notation on the menu that the tip will be built-in. Also, the story does refer to large groups. Sometimes when you are going out with a large group of friends, you don't have choice as to where you'll be eating.

Anyway, I think the policy is ridiculous and almost everyone I know who has served agrees with me. People generally tip more than the 15-18 percent that's added in, but for some reason, people tend not to add in an additional tip when it's already included. Also, as others have mentioned, the purpose of a tip is to reward good service. (or "to insure promptness") I generally get the worst service when the tip is built in.

it's totally fair, anyone could say they are not getting good service, if a person is running back and forth getting you juice, water, nakins, ketchup, and everything else under the sun - they deserve a tip. If you are TOO CHEAP to tip your servers, then DO NOT EAT IN THE RESTURANT, Eat at home.

It is not about being too cheap. For good service, I always leave 20%, for ok service, I leave 15%. For great service, I leave more than 20%. But, I have had servers who didn't come to my table for 45 minutes after our food arrived. That server was not running back and forth to get me juice, water, napkins, ketchup, and everything else under the sun. In fact, when the server took my original food order, he didn't write it down and every single person's order was incorrect. But, we were so hungry that after we waited 20 minutes without seeing him, we wound up eating it anyway. The restaurant had a built-in 18% tip and the manager wouldn't budge.

i've never been in the service industry so my opinion probably isn't super worthy, but i don't like when they do that. it's up to me how much to give. i find it just assumes your big group is too immature to think to tip. why wouldn't i tip when out with 6 girlfriends as opposed to out with just 3? my mentality doesn't change based on crowds!

I had never thought of it that way, skigurl, but what you're saying definitely makes sense.

If they are concerned about people forgetting to tip/leaving out the tip/etc., they should just put the tip scale at the bottom. I have no problem with places putting the 15%/18%/20% at bottom of the check.

Tips are earned. Time for restaurant owners to pay their employees a decent salary. I paid for my food/service/whatever is built into the costs. Tips should be when they do something beyond their duty.

I don't buy the fact that someone who brings me my burger deserves LESS of a tip than someone who brings me my steak. What a load. To pay based on a percentage of the bill is a freaking crime.

And to those who said "if you can't afford the tip, don't go out", excellent tip. Let's further contribute to the demise of restaurants. That said, if all/most restaurants offered "to go" options or if I have to go to the restaurant to get the food myself b/c I have to pay extra, heck, I'd do that.

Seespotrun, I see what you're saying to some extent, but at the same time, a lot of times more expensive restaurants offer more attentive service, so servers have fewer tables at one time.

@ seespotrun: "I paid for my food/service/whatever is built into the costs. Tips should be when they do something beyond their duty." That's correct, up to a point. You paid for your food (check), and your "whatever" (let's call this "profit": check). However, you did not pay for your service, and neither didn't pay for it in full either. Your server, assuming federal minimum wage, is making $2.13 per hour. Your chef, assuming federal minimum wage, is making $6.55 per hour. Why the discrepancy? Because you get to decide how much that service is worth. You lucky dog.

This is kept in place by a number of public policy justifications, prime among them is that tipping is quintessentially *American* as it allows the free market to run its course and rewards outstanding behavior. The problem here is that under your regime, seespotrun, in order for waiters to make the bare minimum wage demanded by the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, they have to act "beyond their duty." To demand outstanding work in order to reach wage parity at bare minimum makes no sense. Suddenly we're in Lake Wobegon, where all the waiters are above average (and they'd have to be in order to make minimum wage under your theory). Perhaps you're thrown off by the word "gratuity." Maybe instead the line should read "diner's contribution to the minimum salary of the waiter."

Furthermore, when you leave cash for that "outstanding" work, and it happens to outstrip the $4.42 difference that the federal government assumes will be made up in tips (the government assumes above average work for everyone? Is this where the deficit comes from?) then the waiter has no incentive to pay federal income tax on it. Congrats, you've turned something fundamentally *American* (the free-market reward of tipping) into something fundamentally *unpatriotic* - tax avoidance. Apparently we all do it.

I'm curious as to how you tip. You state that it's "a load" that someone who brings you a burger deserves less of a tip than someone who brings you a steak. If you don't believe that a burger and a Coke (let's say a generous $15) and a ribeye and Malbec (roundabouts $40) should be tipped differently, do you apply the socially accepted $2.25 for the burger to the steak (now a 5.6% tip) or do you tip $6 for both (now leaving a very generous 40% tip on the burger)? Or do you tip consistently the only way you can: $0 for both, at 0% for both. At which point I'd have to ask if you were European?

tlsgirl has it right in her most recent comment - the solution I proposed above was based on perfect information: you know that they're going to charge you and you either patronize or don't. The Post article said that the diners were being levied the mandatory gratuity without their knowledge. And at that point, my argument changes to suggesting a name and shame in order to provide other diners with requisite notice.

Shoney, there is an inherent flaw in your argument. Federal law mandates that tipped employees receive regular federal minimum wage if they do not receive enough in tips.

lilkimbo, that's not a difference _that_makes_a_difference_ because I'm not referring to the federal minimum wage as a ceiling for wages. It is a problem that anything *higher* than the federal minimum wage doesn't get taxed unless there's a clearly demonstrable paper trail (as in credit card receipts). That the employer must make up the shortfall in the rare occasion that a server doesn't make the bare minimum wage does not change my argument that we the customers are asked to make up that shortfall first - it's primarily our onus to do so. Additionally, in employer wage reporting forms, the bare minimum is what is declared no matter what - all waiters make minimum wage *on paper,* regardless of the actual net income: yet another tax dodge. Plainly, employers are complicit in the system. Where both employers and employees are assumed to be dishonest, clearly the system does not work. And yet it persists.

Shoney, it makes a HUGE difference because you were arguing that people receive a sub-standard wage, which is not the case.

I have worked as a server and known restaurant owners. When I was server, we reported all of our tips. Our owners were adamant about it. Some people abusing the system is a silly reason to scrap it altogether.

My comment #44 was not about tax evasion, it was about the idea that people are actually only taking home the reduced minimum wage, which is not the case.

But, in relation to tax evasion, I don't know what kind of establishments you've worked at, but I would report them. I have never known a restaurant to actually only report minimum wage for all of its servers. With credit cards being so prevalent these days, it's next to impossible.

@ lilkimbo, You've misunderstood. I wasn't arguing from the position that people receive a sub-standard wage, and I wasn't arguing that people take home a sub-standard wage. I was arguing that the economic burden lies first with the customer to make up the shortfall instead of with the employer, which is the systemically efficient solution. The argument was not about take-home, the argument was about incentives and burden shifting within the frankly bizarre tipping regime in which seespotrun was operating.

As to tax avoidance (evasion is a clumsy and loaded term), the substantive fuzziness on the margins between legal and enforceable cause many to stray from the straight and narrow. I know that your #44 wasn't about tax avoidance - but because those arguments featured heavily in my comments #32 and #43, I thought I'd reproduce them again. I'm advocating for changing the system because the motivations and economic incentives that move the actors are flawed and inefficient. Your comment seems to be "this is how I saw something done," which I can't dispute or prove, it being an anecdotal point. So here's an anecdotal rejoinder: a former server I eat out with on a pretty regular basis will pay by card but tip by cash in order to assist in the tax avoidance. And this is a guy who's worked for the IRS.

I see what you're saying now, shoney.

I still don't see a problem with tipping, though. A lot of people who work in retail work on commission, which is also rewarding good work. No one takes home less than minimum wage in either field, though.

And I used an anecdotal point because it's all you provided. Just because you seem to know a lot of people who are OK with breaking the law does not mean that the whole system has to be overhauled.