Here's A Tip...
...never pet a burning dog.
In Bethlehem, PA, some students walked out on their "mandatory" tip from their party of over 6 because of alleged bad service. They got arrested. These group tips are common at most restaurants because generally, large groups either don't tip, or don't tip the generally accepted 15%. This part I understand completely as servers bust their butts to make a living. But should groups have to pay that "mandatory" tip for horrible service? These college students allege that they had to get silverware and napkins for themselves, had to get refills at the bar - while their server got a smoke break in - and also waited an hour for their food. I would think that would qualify for a reduced tip.
The restaurant claims they were busy and that is why the food took so long to arrive to the customer's table. That's the restaurant's fault, not the customer's fault. The restaurant should have staffed adequately. The restaurant also contends that since the customers knew about the added gratuity, they should still have to pay regardless. But the larger point I want to make here is that this attitude and mentality seems to be indicative of the relationship between people and the government.
There are people that think the government owes them something or that the government should give them something because of some idea they have in their head. They feel they are entitled to different government services despite doing nothing. I know a young unmarried couple with a kid in the area who collects $1000 from the state to do nothing but lie on their couch. No searching for a job, allegedly smoking weed and drinking, absolutely no contribution to society whatsoever. Not much unlike the restaurant above demanding payment for services they allegedly provided poorly. Meanwhile, I know another single mother who gets little to nothing from the government, works 2 jobs, struggles to make rent, struggles to pay her utilities, can't afford a decent vehicle let alone fix the one she has, but still find time to take her kids to church, get them involved in youth organizations, and looks at the young unmarried couple mentioned earlier and shakes her head in disbelief.
Likewise, there are people in the United States that think the government should provide them a job. The government should pay their mortgage. The government should provide this benefit or another. There are people that seriously believe the government is the answer to all problems - including our current President. But those that read this blog know that the government is not the solution, but that government is the problem.
Government is bloated and everything they run or touch turns goes broke or fails to do what it was originally supposed to accomplish. What if the government worked on the same principle a server at a restaurant works on? If the government does good, is courteous, and provide services quickly, then the government can have a tip in the form of my tax dollars. If it does it's job badly, then you get no tax dollars? How long do you think it would take before the government runs efficiently and profitably?
Instead, our government has the same disease some of the people do. The government gets in the way, causes more problems than it solves, erodes our Constitutional rights, provides services horribly (think VA hospitals) and spends more than it should - all the while believing it's entitled to our money. Yet the government thinks we should still pay for horrible service/performance and for doing more harm than good.
In Bethlehem, PA, some students walked out on their "mandatory" tip from their party of over 6 because of alleged bad service. They got arrested. These group tips are common at most restaurants because generally, large groups either don't tip, or don't tip the generally accepted 15%. This part I understand completely as servers bust their butts to make a living. But should groups have to pay that "mandatory" tip for horrible service? These college students allege that they had to get silverware and napkins for themselves, had to get refills at the bar - while their server got a smoke break in - and also waited an hour for their food. I would think that would qualify for a reduced tip.
The restaurant claims they were busy and that is why the food took so long to arrive to the customer's table. That's the restaurant's fault, not the customer's fault. The restaurant should have staffed adequately. The restaurant also contends that since the customers knew about the added gratuity, they should still have to pay regardless. But the larger point I want to make here is that this attitude and mentality seems to be indicative of the relationship between people and the government.
There are people that think the government owes them something or that the government should give them something because of some idea they have in their head. They feel they are entitled to different government services despite doing nothing. I know a young unmarried couple with a kid in the area who collects $1000 from the state to do nothing but lie on their couch. No searching for a job, allegedly smoking weed and drinking, absolutely no contribution to society whatsoever. Not much unlike the restaurant above demanding payment for services they allegedly provided poorly. Meanwhile, I know another single mother who gets little to nothing from the government, works 2 jobs, struggles to make rent, struggles to pay her utilities, can't afford a decent vehicle let alone fix the one she has, but still find time to take her kids to church, get them involved in youth organizations, and looks at the young unmarried couple mentioned earlier and shakes her head in disbelief.
Likewise, there are people in the United States that think the government should provide them a job. The government should pay their mortgage. The government should provide this benefit or another. There are people that seriously believe the government is the answer to all problems - including our current President. But those that read this blog know that the government is not the solution, but that government is the problem.
Government is bloated and everything they run or touch turns goes broke or fails to do what it was originally supposed to accomplish. What if the government worked on the same principle a server at a restaurant works on? If the government does good, is courteous, and provide services quickly, then the government can have a tip in the form of my tax dollars. If it does it's job badly, then you get no tax dollars? How long do you think it would take before the government runs efficiently and profitably?
Instead, our government has the same disease some of the people do. The government gets in the way, causes more problems than it solves, erodes our Constitutional rights, provides services horribly (think VA hospitals) and spends more than it should - all the while believing it's entitled to our money. Yet the government thinks we should still pay for horrible service/performance and for doing more harm than good.
Great post, Downstate. It's something I've been thinking about lately, as one of the trending problems we face. As William Bence likes to point out, it's as much cultural as political. Other societal / cultural trends include Political Correctness, individualism vs collectivism, voting for self-interest, looking to the government to fix the economy, intent versus motive (hate crimes, tort reform). Does any of that trigger anything for you?
Reply to this
Loren,
Political Correctness is a shell for limiting First Amendment rights and limiting debate on touchy subjects that people don't want to debate about. PC and the fear of insulting someone helped give us the Ft. Hood massacre. God forbid someone's feelings get hurt in the effort to possibly save lives later on.
Individualism vs. collectivism -- the power always lies within the individual. I wish I could have found the clip from Glenn Beck's show on Oct. 1, 2009 when he had Charles Payne talking about the mentality of suckling at the teat of government. He goes on to explain that those that try to better their situation by themselves are ostracized.
Voting for self interest -- isn't that what the health care reform bill all about? It's not about the "uninsured". It's about rewarding those that support you and reward those that will support you in the future. Tort lawyers won out big - HUGE contributors to the Democrat Party. Illegal immigrants won also because they will be able to access federal health care at the expense of legal citizens' tax money. Today, the House of Representatives rewarded the American Medical Association for their support of health care reform. On deck is the Employee Free Choice Act - rewarding unions who are HUGE Democrat Party supporters. In the hole is Dream Act III to give amnesty to illegal immigrants - a fresh new voting block for the Democrat Party. Still on the bench is Cap and Trade - rewarding Al Gore and the environmentalist wackos on the liberal left of the Democrat Party. Still in limbo is the Afghanistan troop surge which Obama will have to make his Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink liberal loons unhappy at some point.
Looking to the government to fix the economy - you and I both know lower taxes, limited government, private investment, and less government regulation are the real tools to jump starting or maintaining the economy. Instead, now we expect the government to give us money to buy a car or a house. We expect the government to curtail credit card companies because we ran up our credit. Those same credit card companies are also the very banks the government just bailed out. The government throws the banks a lifesaver, but keeps them in the water?
Intent vs motive - hate crimes are very hard to prove. And nobody can define a hate crime effectively. It's like what is obscene? The answer usually is "I know what it is when I see it". That's fine, but that doesn't make the editors of Webster's Dictionary or the Department of Justice feel any better. On top of that, why do you protect one group over another? I understand that some groups have a history of crimes done against them, but why don't they protect our troops under the Federal Hate Crimes Bill? Wasn't it almost 40 years ago during Vietnam where our troops were spat on and berated by our own citizens? I guess they don't need protecting anymore - at least in the eyes of Congress.
Ok Loren, I'll give up my soapbox now. I guess you did trigger something there! I could go on and on but I'll save it for my book I might write someday...
Reply to this