this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2023
322 points (97.6% liked)
Asklemmy
43786 readers
1166 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You make some big assumptions about my politics here. Believe me, I've got plenty of 'distress' for employers. None of this changes the fact that if you know that service workers are grievously exploited and you choose to have them wait on you while not compensating them, then you are also committing an immoral act. You and the employer then have something in common: you both know that the worker ought to be compensated fairly for their work, and you're both refusing to do it.
Am I absolved of sin when buying clothing that I know is produced in a sweatshop because 'well, the employer really ought to improve working conditions, but that's not my problem'?
The employer first exploited the worker, then you went in, benefited from their labor for free, directly reducing their income, supporting the business that exploits them while not supporting the worker, and somehow, your hands are clean?
You could choose to simply not give businesses who don't fairly compensate their workers your money, but instead, you give them the cost of your dinner and reduce your server's hourly wage?
If people want to reject tipping culture, they need to reject businesses that practice it, not fund them.
Could you do me a favor real quick? Could you please tell me in no uncertain terms that you support collective bargaining (i.e. unionization) by workers to combat exploitation by employers. That will short circuit a lot of this I think. If you cannot do that, then I am forced to believe you are arguing in bad faith (as most of your arguments here are reductive, untenable, and deliberately antagonistic).
Will this picture from my kitchen suffice? Now how about some counterarguments to my terrible points?
That is an awesome poster, and a very.....interesting response given how specific my request was...I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, though.
So first off, when I walk into a restaurant, I have no way of knowing if the employees are being exploited. If I believe I live in a functioning society with appropriate regulations in place, I have to assume they're not. I have to assume that an employee continuing to work somewhere means they would prefer to keep that job, which means they would prefer the business stay in business, which means they would prefer I spend my money at the establishment. If your argument is that by living in the US I should know that all restaurant workers are exploited and thus I should never eat at one, I respect your opinion, but I disagree.
If that's NOT what you're saying, then how do I know when an employee in front of me is being exploited? Either they should tell me, and I'll leave, or they should quit.
I don't like the choice of the word "sin" here, as that implies some divine being has arbitrarily chosen what "sin" is. I will assume you meant something more akin to "is it ethically conscionable". And I would say, if not buying the clothing means you are unclothed, then yes. Some problems are inherently systemic, and are much larger than an individual will be able to solve before they need to put clothes on their back.
On the other hand, if I'm buying a dress to wear once, and I know it's made by exploited workers, then yeah, no, obviously don't buy the dress.
Except that, unless the employer opts to break the law, anything between the worker's tips and minimum wage comes out of the employer's pocket. Legally, that's how minimum wage works. I understand that wage theft is a thing, but that exists in many industries, yet you are arguing that uniquely in the restaurant industry, it is the responsibility of the customer to pay for an employer's crimes? That doesn't make any sense.
Your arguments are the equivalent of shifting the blame for climate change onto individuals. Both are systemic problems that can only be solved through regulation, and both have an entire industry built around resisting those regulations. It isn't my fault for not tipping any more than it's my fault for having to drive a gas-powered car. I can't afford an electric car, the infrastructure where I am isn't there yet, the supply of electric cars isn't there yet, all of these are real problems that we are decades behind on solving. In the meantime, I have to get to work.