To tip or not to tip

For most Britons, tipping, or paying gratuity, is seen as relatively limited to the hospitality industry where it’s traditionally been considered a gesture of appreciation for good service. And as a custom, it generally isn’t one that people bemoan unless of course they feel it’s foisted upon them. If I go to a restaurant, I have no qualms in leaving a decent tip for the waiter or waitress if they’ve provided good service and positively contributed to my overall dining experience. Therefore to remunerate them with something extra seems an appropriate way to acknowledge that. However, would I instinctively tip someone for pulling a solitary pint of Stella at a bar, a transaction that is complete within minutes where unlike someone waiting tables, we may not even exchange much if any conversation? No. After all, would that not be considered a very basic element of their job that as a consumer, I should be able to presume them to be being paid a decent wage for? The problem is, often they aren’t.

There are many jobs that don’t pay well where staff may go the extra mile for you as the consumer. So where do we draw the line at who and for what we should tip for and when we shouldn’t? Furthermore, considering the argument of helping to support low paid workers with a tip to supplement their income (a definite driver for me when tipping), how much of that onus should we be expected to shoulder as consumers? After all, we aren’t their employers with whom (along with governments) the responsibility to ensure a living wage should be assumed. Indeed, it can create a moral quandary when considering one’s view on paying gratuity.

With an Anglocentric perspective, the status quo for paying gratuity in North America presents such a contrast to what we’re used to in the UK that it’s often inexplicable to us. It’s more than we’d usually tip and it isn’t just extended to restaurants, bars and hotels either. In fact, in most service industries, and for most customer facing roles, a tip is expected. In developing countries, I’ve often felt this is an appropriate conduit for helping local people who arguably have a harder life than me. But otherwise in more developed countries, this can be an expectation that is met with underlying resentment.

In many service industries within the United States especially, consumers are expected to tip regardless of quality of service or how minor the service being provided might be. And as it’s become socially inherent, few people bat an eyelid at the custom. It’s to the extent that Brits, unfamiliar with such universal tipping, are often perceived as penny-pinching misers when abroad in contrast with our American peers as we typically tip less or not at all based on the respective situation. Conversely, it’s also a frustrating experience that such an expectation is foisted upon us rather than it being a decision we willingly make for ourselves.

In my experience, genuinely or otherwise, service industries in America typically offer great service that is admittedly better than one can often expect in the UK. Staff waiting on you in a restaurant are hugely personable, knowledgeable of the menu and highly accommodating. Their intention is clearly to provide the consumer with the best dining experience possible. Obviously, this isn’t without exception but I’ve nevertheless experienced some great service in American eateries. And while on some level it’s probably in pursuit of a good tip, I have no qualms in tipping generously in such instances as I feel it’s well deserved and appropriate. I also know that such jobs often pay a poor basic wage which again incentivises me to want to acknowledge good service with additional remuneration.

In considering the aforementioned, there is something that isn’t right about the consumer having to effectively subsidise an employee’s wage because the employer isn’t willing or able to factor a living wage into their costs. The employer thereby maximises their profit by paying the employee as little as legally (if not immorally) possible while relying on the consumer to provide any meaningful income for the employee in addition to what they’ve already paid. Someone’s losing out and it certainly isn’t the employer. Nonetheless, as the bastion of capitalism, it’s unsurprising that such an approach is commonplace in America.

Admittedly, for many employees, this approach works just fine. Work hard and provide great service and you’ll make tips aplenty that will dwarf what you might make in other sectors with a higher basic wage. With tipping being so socially ingrained and therefore not contested by consumers, one might argue that ignorantly or otherwise, the status quo actually leaves everyone happy. But the crux of the argument is that staff in service industries deserve a decent basic wage, regardless of any gratuity they might receive on top of that to reflect their efforts. Alas, capitalism has a way of making people decline to examine the flaws of a system as long as they’re able to make money from it.

Returning to the UK, some British restaurants have greedily seen gratuity as a pot of cash that they’d also like to get their hands on; 'tis the nature of capitalism when the bourgeoisie spy an opportunity to make extra cash at the expense of the workers. This is despite tips being a reflection of a customer’s gratitude for the staff that attended to them. In 2015, it was revealed that French restaurant Cote takes the service charge it adds to bills rather than distributing it to staff. Cote’s argument is that it pays slightly higher than the minimum wage (but still lower than the living wage) and that taking the service charge facilitates this. Up until October 2015, Pizza Express took an 8% ‘administrative charge’ for processing tips that were paid via card, a policy that led me to boycott their restaurants since it was revealed in 2008. Similarly, Italian restaurant chain Carluccio’s (another that I’ve not been to since it was revealed) felt it was appropriate to pay below the minimum wage as they would meet it using customers’ tips. And they aren’t the only restaurants that have had such practices.

Wherever possible, I’ve always endeavoured to tip in cash and asked staff if the tip will be going directly to them (as their employers may be too unscrupulous for that to be assumed). Too often tipping presents a grey area where employers blur the lines between it being part of an employee’s pay rather than recognition for their service. It’s akin to a pimp taking a cut from his or her prostitutes’ payment under the guise that they facilitated the transaction in the first instance. Yet these restaurants would undoubtedly have received less ire than that of a pimp.

The crux of the problem with tipping is two-fold. Firstly, employees need to be paid a fair, living wage that is commensurate with their role and that can be reasonably met as part of an employer’s costs. This needs to be separate from the consideration of tips which are a reflection of the relationship between the consumer and the employee. This indeed is the second consideration as a tip cannot be considered something that the employer has a claim to, nor should it be factored in as a likely subsidy to an employee’s income. Governments too need to ensure that a fair wage is being paid to workers in service industries.

Tipping will probably continue to be a moral and corporate grey area and one that many struggle with in either context. Though regardless of the solution, someone is probably always losing out.

Haye day or pay day, it’s certainly not time for David Haye to call it a day

After a three-and-a-half year hiatus, David Haye has returned to boxing with a first round KO of Mark de Mori. However, many boxing fans have questioned Haye’s motives for returning to the ring. As a former unified cruiserweight world champion and latterly a WBA heavyweight world champion, Haye had, and has, little to prove or achieve in the sport. His loss to Wladimir Klitschko, in what was a lacklustre effort, was followed by a demolition job of Dereck Chisora that had needle aplenty in the build-up. Subsequently, Haye was scheduled to meet current heavyweight champion Tyson Fury but unfortunately pulled out twice due to injuries. Following the second injury, which required reconstructive shoulder surgery, it was suggested that Haye might not fight again. But as was suspected by many during his lay-off, Haye has made a return to the sport and a timely one at that.

It’s been suggested that Haye’s return is for financial reasons, a claim that hasn’t been supported by anything other than the rumour mill. As a boxer who’s always seemed to have great business acumen and astuteness, not to mention having made huge amounts of money in fights where he fought under his own Hayemaker promotional banner, I’d like to think there isn’t any truth to this. Nonetheless, whatever the reason for his return, Haye is back and ready to make his mark on the heavyweight division yet again.

Haye’s return has come at a time when the heavyweight landscape has freed itself from the shackles of the Klitschko brothers’ domination of the division that it was subject to when Haye stepped away from the sport. Tyson Fury and Deontay Wilder are now champions and Anthony Joshua is being touted by many as the next big name of the division. Fortuitously and favourably for Haye, all three are potential opponents for him either en route or fighting for a world title. And all three are fights that Haye would win – subject to his current form.

While Haye had a decisive KO win over de Mori, it was after 2 minutes and 11 seconds of the first round. That’s 131 seconds from which we were able to gauge how much ring rust Haye may have accumulated in the last three-and-and-a-half years. What we do know is that Haye hasn’t lost any of his punch power and explosiveness, or his ability to finish an opponent once he smells blood. Conversely, there were glimpses of Haye’s timing and accuracy being slightly off but nothing that wouldn’t be expected from such a lengthy lay-off. There also wasn’t any opportunity to assess Haye’s punch resistance, or, due to the brevity of the bout, his stamina.

Haye has also returned with a new physique; he’s bulked up while retaining a chiselled frame but without any discernible loss of his trademark speed. Gone are the days of Haye fighting close to cruiserweight limit and he weighed in at a career-high of 227lbs 5oz. This didn’t seem to affect him negatively at all but it’s unknown how he would have carried that extra weight going into the second half of the fight.

While de Mori was a WBA top ten ranked opponent with a solid record, he represented a litmus test for Haye’s ability to compete rather than an actual test of being able to return to the highest level of the division. Prior to his fight against Haye, I’d never heard of de Mori which is telling of the level at which he’d previously fought at. Overall, there are still unanswered questions about Haye. Nevertheless, based on the little we have seen, there seems to be little to be concerned about regarding the legitimacy of his return.

Returning to Joshua, this seems to be the fight that Haye will want to pursue the quickest and arguably the most winnable fight too. With the hype around Joshua (which is gradually becoming warranted, just not as rapidly as some might suggest), and Haye’s ability to draw a crowd, Haye knows this will probably be the biggest money-spinner too. Haye’s performance against de Mori would have been intended to be quick and conclusive to make a statement akin to Joshua’s victories and put himself in the frame for a domestic PPV clash. Though, despite the rhetoric from Joshua’s team and the casual boxing fans of Joshua’s current ability exceeding that of his actual experience, Haye’s display of punching power will possibly provide a reality check that leads them to hold off from making that fight. Rather, a more sensible approach would be to build Joshua’s experience before putting him in such a dangerous fight that at the time of writing, I don’t think he could win.

As for Wilder and Fury, they’d provide sterner tests having operated at a higher level than Joshua. Fury has said he’d refuse to fight Haye given his two consecutive pull outs from when they were scheduled to fight which is understandable really. I expect that’s nonetheless just bombast from the big man who knows it’d be a huge fight. Haye vs Wilder too would be a great attraction in a UK vs US heavyweight fight that would capture the attention of a global audience. While Haye might have had an advantage over Wilder from when they sparred, three-and-a-half years is a long time in which Haye hasn’t fought anyone and Wilder became a world champion.

It’s certainly a new day in heavyweight boxing and Haye’s return makes it one of rich pickings for him if he’s able to return to his previous form. Although it still remains to be seen if that’s case. Yet from the little we saw again de Mori, there’s increasingly less reason to think otherwise and more reason to believe that Haye will begin his ascent through the rankings en route to a heavyweight title.