Well, there's the answer to the hospitality staff crisis - let all redundant fisherpeople be retrained as waiters, baristas etc., and move to London, where the shortage is likely to be the greatest.
Well, there's the answer to the hospitality staff crisis - let all redundant fisherpeople be retrained as waiters, baristas etc., and move to London, where the shortage is likely to be the greatest.
Their next job could be in cyber (they just don't know it yet).
Well, there's the answer to the hospitality staff crisis - let all redundant fisherpeople be retrained as waiters, baristas etc., and move to London, where the shortage is likely to be the greatest.
Except with everyone in London offices now working from home...
Well, there's the answer to the hospitality staff crisis - let all redundant fisherpeople be retrained as waiters, baristas etc., and move to London, where the shortage is likely to be the greatest.
Except with everyone in London offices now working from home...
Ah, but they'll still be wanting refreshment in pubs, clubs, bars, and restaurants - which are to be found in all parts of the metropolis, not just the bits which used to have offices.
Who would have thought this could possibly happen?
O the irony - Bozzie & Chums (not to mention the owners themselves, of course) are desperate to get the pubs and restaurants open, and there's not enough staff coming from the EU!
Quote from one of the managers in that article:
We are getting plenty of applications but not people with the skillset we require
So basically, pub and restaurant owners are complaining because they’re going to actually have to train British people - who clearly want the jobs - to work in their establishments rather than saving money by bringing in pre-trained staff from the continent, leaving those Brits on the unemployment line.
Yeah, not seeing this as a bad thing for Britain. At worst some temporary understaffing while the new employees are trained up, then business as usual but with fewer unemployed Brits.
Oh, and apparently it’s leading to higher wages for hospitality workers as well. The horror!
O quite - the thought of higher wages having to be paid to hospitality workers hadn't escaped me.
The irony, of course, is in the lack of Horrid (and possibly) Brown People Not Like Us from the EU to do the serving, washing-up etc. etc.
I guess the fruit farmers and suchlike will have to pay decent wages to whoever they can recruit, too, if the young Europeans decide not to bother this year...
If - and it's a big IF - lots of unemployed Brits decide to retrain as waiters and fruitpickers, well and good - as long as they get a proper wage...
Yes, of course - and therein might lie a further problem...especially for the many whose disposable income has been slashed by the effects of the pandemic (or by Brexit-related issues).
Or the owners could simply accept lower profits. Or they could put on a pinny and do a shift as a bottle-washer. And yes, we need to accept that having a meal out - employing waiting staff and cooks and washers-up and cleaners - comes at a cost we've been simply unused to paying for the better part of (at least) two decades.
Farmers did try to get a scheme together last year to get UK based people to help pick fruit and veg, and even with so many people out of work because of the pandemic they got very few people applying - even fewer people able to actually do the work. Farming has particular difficulties - most people don't live close to farms (we're generally in cities and towns) so there are very few people in the places where the work is, very few people in the UK have the opportunity to learn the skills needed and so training starts from low starting point; whereas a lot of the EU labour that we've relied on for decades are people willing to move a long way and live near the farms, and many of them have gained skills from working family farms since an early age.
Hospitality may find employing UK based people easier. First, because so many restaurants, pubs etc are located in towns and cities so there's a large potential labour pool on their doorstep. Second, there are lots of people who have done some form of hospitality work before - waiting tables or serving behind a bar are common occupations for students trying to earn a few quid, or paying their way as they tour Europe or further afield.
Wages will still be a problem. Students aren't (usually) looking for a job that can pay their rent and living expenses (any job that does that will need to be close to full time, and so not work with study - leaving them to take out student loans and hope they can get a proper job before the interest builds up too much) and so will generally be OK with minimum wage or a bit above that. Likewise, young people looking to supplement touring somewhere while they stay in cheap hostels or sleep on the train to the next city on their trip may also be OK with minimum wage or above. People who have rent/mortgage to pay, who don't want to rely on foodbanks, etc will find they can't manage to live off even a "living wage" job.
Anyone want to bet that UK immigration policy ends up with so many exemptions for specific industries with shortages that we end up with just as much Eastern European migration as we had before Brexit, but in a much more bureaucratic and state-driven way?
I'm guessing this will be the picture yes - not necessarily all Eastern European, but in a very bureaucratic, unresponsive way (the talk of quotas for certain occupations speaks to this).
Or the owners could simply accept lower profits. Or they could put on a pinny and do a shift as a bottle-washer.
Most owners probably do that anyway, and always have done. Some restaurant owners like to be front of house and greet customers, others are cooks and prefer to be in the kitchen, they probably all hate trying to sort out the books (they enjoy food, hence opening a restaurant, not accountancy). The vast majority of owners put in very long hours, being present before opening and still there after closing, and will fill in any gaps that are needed. Much like any other small business for that matter.
Or the owners could simply accept lower profits. Or they could put on a pinny and do a shift as a bottle-washer. And yes, we need to accept that having a meal out - employing waiting staff and cooks and washers-up and cleaners - comes at a cost we've been simply unused to paying for the better part of (at least) two decades.
As I understand it, the majority of cafes, restaurants, and similar businesses are not making vast sums of money. 15% or so of businesses in the UK hospitality sector fail each year (3 times more than average). "Simply accept lower profits" doesn't seem like a viable solution.
Your last point is right on the mark, though. If you pay staff in restaurants a decent wage, you also have to pay Copenhagen prices for a meal out. As usual, when you make something more expensive, there'll be less demand for it: if the average couple's budget won't change, so if the price of a meal out doubles, they get to eat out half as often, and in practice will probably eat out much less often than that.
One of the reasons for the lack of people working In hospitality is the fact that many got laid off found other jobs that mean they can have more time with their family and are unwilling to change back.
I think that there is also a strong element of "once bitten, twice shy", and those who now have other jobs are reluctant to go back in case they end up jobless again, especially if they have moved off casual/zero hours contracts into firmer ones.
Or the owners could simply accept lower profits. Or they could put on a pinny and do a shift as a bottle-washer.
Most owners probably do that anyway, and always have done. Some restaurant owners like to be front of house and greet customers, others are cooks and prefer to be in the kitchen, they probably all hate trying to sort out the books (they enjoy food, hence opening a restaurant, not accountancy). The vast majority of owners put in very long hours, being present before opening and still there after closing, and will fill in any gaps that are needed. Much like any other small business for that matter.
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
The 'vast majority' of owners are private equity firms and/or shareholders. The relatively small number of independent restaurants are not in the firing line here, and if they put in the hours then kudos to them - still not an excuse to pay their staff less than is required to live on, mind.
If you pay staff in restaurants a decent wage, you also have to pay Copenhagen prices for a meal out. As usual, when you make something more expensive, there'll be less demand for it: if the average couple's budget won't change, so if the price of a meal out doubles, they get to eat out half as often, and in practice will probably eat out much less often than that.
If everyone in hospitality jobs were paid a living wage, the average wage would go up. People working hospitality jobs would also like to go out to eat from time to time.
I see this argument on that Bookface thing whenever anyone in the USA suggests that wait staff should be covered by minimum wage legislation rather than depending on tips. Someone usually points out that in some states they already are and it doesn't increase the prices.
It turns out that there isn't a simple relationship between staff wages and meal prices, as one would expect given that in a free market economy prices are determined by supply demand equilibrium, rather than supply cost alone.
Or the owners could simply accept lower profits. Or they could put on a pinny and do a shift as a bottle-washer.
Most owners probably do that anyway, and always have done. Some restaurant owners like to be front of house and greet customers, others are cooks and prefer to be in the kitchen, they probably all hate trying to sort out the books (they enjoy food, hence opening a restaurant, not accountancy). The vast majority of owners put in very long hours, being present before opening and still there after closing, and will fill in any gaps that are needed. Much like any other small business for that matter.
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
The 'vast majority' of owners are private equity firms and/or shareholders.
That probably depends on definition of 'ownership', In terms of function, I'd still think that the person who has set up a business and put in the effort to run that is the 'owner' even if they've done so with investment from other people (the bank, equity firms, selling shares, ...) and in the process handed over some of their business in collateral to others.
The relatively small number of independent restaurants are not in the firing line here, and if they put in the hours then kudos to them
Not I talked about the number of 'owners' (or, businesses if you prefer). Obviously there are a very large number of chain restaurants with a single owner (which maybe a corporate entity rather than an individual).I don't know the numbers but I expect that the number of owners running independent restaurants exceeds the number of chains by a quite significant number. That's without considering the extent to which the restaurant business operates franchises.
I also consider the independent restaurants to be well and truly in the firing line. In Jan 2017 we held our annual Burns' Night in a small local independent restaurant (the owner being a supporter, despite that we make sure the minimum suggested donation to attend allows us to pay her enough to cover costs and staff salaries at above living wage levels for the evening), she was considering closing because out of her 6 regular staff half were EU citizens and if they couldn't remain after Brexit she couldn't see how she could recruit anyone to take their place (fortunately for her, that's not been an issue as her staff have been able to continue living here). Another local restaurant I've eaten at a lot over the years closed last year because their take-out business wasn't bringing in enough to cover the costs without the sit-in restaurant being open, and despite being a much loved and popular restaurant profit margins had never been big enough to build up a large reserve to sink into the business for an indefinite period and after almost 20 years she decided it was time for her to hang up her pinny and retire.
still not an excuse to pay their staff less than is required to live on, mind.
That is certainly true, and not something I've denied.
I see this argument on that Bookface thing whenever anyone in the USA suggests that wait staff should be covered by minimum wage legislation rather than depending on tips. Someone usually points out that in some states they already are and it doesn't increase the prices.
It turns out that there isn't a simple relationship between staff wages and meal prices, as one would expect given that in a free market economy prices are determined by supply demand equilibrium, rather than supply cost alone.
The costs of running a business are multitudinous, and in very few businesses are wages the biggest cost. For a restaurant there's a large property for which there will be large rents and business taxes to pay, there will be costs of ingredients and utilities, and wages on that.
If we consider an increase in hourly wage from £10 to £15, how much will that raise prices if it's all passed on to the customers bill? Let's assume that a server can manage 5 tables of customers and each table is on average 4 people and they're there for an hour, and we'll also assume that time spent by a server is matched by someone in the kitchen - so, that extra £5 per hour per person works out at £10 per hour spread across 20 people, or an extra 50p on each meal. An inexpensive meal out, including some drinks, wouldn't be less than £10 - so a 50% increase in salaries would only increase prices by less than 5%.
I see this argument on that Bookface thing whenever anyone in the USA suggests that wait staff should be covered by minimum wage legislation rather than depending on tips. Someone usually points out that in some states they already are and it doesn't increase the prices.
It turns out that there isn't a simple relationship between staff wages and meal prices, as one would expect given that in a free market economy prices are determined by supply demand equilibrium, rather than supply cost alone.
The costs of running a business are multitudinous, and in very few businesses are wages the biggest cost. For a restaurant there's a large property for which there will be large rents and business taxes to pay, there will be costs of ingredients and utilities, and wages on that.
If we consider an increase in hourly wage from £10 to £15, how much will that raise prices if it's all passed on to the customers bill? Let's assume that a server can manage 5 tables of customers and each table is on average 4 people and they're there for an hour, and we'll also assume that time spent by a server is matched by someone in the kitchen - so, that extra £5 per hour per person works out at £10 per hour spread across 20 people, or an extra 50p on each meal. An inexpensive meal out, including some drinks, wouldn't be less than £10 - so a 50% increase in salaries would only increase prices by less than 5%.
Exactly. And you may not even see that 5% increase because of the other factors controlling prices.
You could easily see that with improved wages you have happier staff, who are less likely to take other jobs so reduced staff turnover (and, of course, there's always a cost to hiring and training new staff). Happier staff may work harder, and customers have a better experience so stay a bit longer and have an after dinner coffee or come back more often and recommend the place to friends. More people in the restaurant means more profits even if you make a wee bit less on each meal served.
AIUI the restaurant sector was overheating (ho-ho) even before Covid, because too many venture capitalists had thought: 'Casual dining is making money, therefore more casual dining will make more money.'
Normally the expected 'market correction' (to use the preferred euphemism) would be a very bad thing for everyone who loses their job in it, but if a lot of them have got new jobs anyway, it might not be so terrible.
A Further Education college (in UK usage, when we had polytechnics they provided degree level ('Higher Education') teaching while 'Further Education' is above school level teaching but below degree level and is often vocational) but not unusual in teaching the skills one might need in hospitality. And while I don't know the details someone clearly pays for it.
Quite often, the colleges have restaurants open to the public to allow the students hands-on practice on (almost) real customers: these can be good, cheap places for works lunches.
I did catering at FE College. Only us and those who were already in employment did the courses. Learning before you start a job is up to you. Training while in the job is the preferred way otherwise
FE colleges basically exist to provide vocational training - a lot of which in previous generations would have been part of an apprenticeship. Apprenticeships cost the employer, so now that FE colleges provide those courses the costs to an employer are cut. Usually the costs are now born to a significant extent by the student, either with loans taken out to cover costs or by doing the courses part time reducing how much time is spent earning money. Students now leave university or college with potentially eye-watering levels of debt - and for hospitality if they then don't get much more than minimum wage anyway that debt will continue to grow and barring a lottery win may never be paid off. It may even be better to take that minimum wage job serving at a chain take-away and hope that gets you enough experience to escape that rather than take on a college course with associated debts in the hope that will give you the step out of the minimum wage jobs.
The college across the road certainly seems to have a lot of students older than that. But, we have a different education system from England and no fees for HE anyway (still need loans to cover living costs though).
FE colleges basically exist to provide vocational training - a lot of which in previous generations would have been part of an apprenticeship.
In Scotland, yes. In England it's a mixed picture. The town where I grew has education structured on the basis of 11-16 secondary schools and all post-16 education delivered by FE colleges. This is still pretty common but being eroded by academisation as schools want to hang onto their pupils into the 6th form.
I see this argument on that Bookface thing whenever anyone in the USA suggests that wait staff should be covered by minimum wage legislation rather than depending on tips. Someone usually points out that in some states they already are and it doesn't increase the prices.
Generally, most wait staff say they prefer the tip system over a decent wage and no tips, because they think they make more money that way.
I don't really see why the compensation structure for the person who brings me food should look different from the person who helps me try on shoes, but there you are.
I see this argument on that Bookface thing whenever anyone in the USA suggests that wait staff should be covered by minimum wage legislation rather than depending on tips. Someone usually points out that in some states they already are and it doesn't increase the prices.
Generally, most wait staff say they prefer the tip system over a decent wage and no tips, because they think they make more money that way.
But to a certain extent that's an equilibrium based on current circumstances, and afaict at least in the US what was being proposed was a minimum wage + tips, not a replacement of tips with a minimum wage.
Could have sworn that I just heard a Jersey fisherman on bbc radio four just now expressing Some Sympathy for the French fishing fleet...anyone else catch that???
I would expect that a lot of Jersey fishermen feel they have a lot more in common with French fishermen than they do with a former hack journalist and pathological liar with a wallpaper fetish in London.
Generally, most wait staff say they prefer the tip system over a decent wage and no tips, because they think they make more money that way.
How are tips to be handled? Are they pooled and then divided amongst the wait staff, or does each person directly pocket them? And are they declared for tax?
Tipping culture is different in the US. They are basically most of the wage of the server.
I think it should be wage and tips at the discretion of the customer but it is not.
Generally, most wait staff say they prefer the tip system over a decent wage and no tips, because they think they make more money that way.
How are tips to be handled? Are they pooled and then divided amongst the wait staff, or does each person directly pocket them? And are they declared for tax?
That varies between restaurants. Some restaurants operate a tip pool, where tips are divided among the staff, or a tip-sharing scheme where a fraction of each waiter's tips are shared with back-of-house staff, but some don't.
Are they declared for tax? Well, they're supposed to be. Anything that goes through your employer's payroll system will get reported to the IRS (tip pools, credit card tips, etc. will leave a record.) Tipped employees are required to report their tips monthy to their employer, so their employer can withhold enough tax. The employer has to file their own annual returns, and if they report less than 8% tips on gross sales, the IRS assumes you're all lying, and requires you to allocate extra tip income to your employees.
But you can be quite certain that few people report 100% of cash tips.
Seeing as some major corporations are getting away with paying zero taxes in the US, I have no problem with servers not reporting all their cash income.
Seeing as some major corporations are getting away with paying zero taxes in the US, I have no problem with servers not reporting all their cash income.
They should both pay their full taxes.
In the early 2000s, I was subject to 2 full tax audits on my returns. Both showed that I'd fully and properly disclosed my income (sad to say, unlike some others). Each audit cost me about $40,000 on top of all the time spent answering query after query.
What a lot of effort. Just pay a wage that means tips are not essential.
Tipping culture is different around the world, in French theatres the usher who shows you to your seat works for tips and you give them €1 for showing your party to their seats. Anyone who works in any kind of way should be paid enough from their job to live on. Of course this is not the case even for full time workers
What a lot of effort. Just pay a wage that means tips are not essential.
Tipping culture is different around the world, in French theatres the usher who shows you to your seat works for tips and you give them €1 for showing your party to their seats.
I'm afraid my response to this kind of nonsense is "I don't want your service. You have a pointless function. I can find my own seat. Go away."
Comments
Well, there's the answer to the hospitality staff crisis - let all redundant fisherpeople be retrained as waiters, baristas etc., and move to London, where the shortage is likely to be the greatest.
Their next job could be in cyber (they just don't know it yet).
Except with everyone in London offices now working from home...
Ah, but they'll still be wanting refreshment in pubs, clubs, bars, and restaurants - which are to be found in all parts of the metropolis, not just the bits which used to have offices.
Simples!
Quote from one of the managers in that article:
So basically, pub and restaurant owners are complaining because they’re going to actually have to train British people - who clearly want the jobs - to work in their establishments rather than saving money by bringing in pre-trained staff from the continent, leaving those Brits on the unemployment line.
Yeah, not seeing this as a bad thing for Britain. At worst some temporary understaffing while the new employees are trained up, then business as usual but with fewer unemployed Brits.
Oh, and apparently it’s leading to higher wages for hospitality workers as well. The horror!
The irony, of course, is in the lack of Horrid (and possibly) Brown People Not Like Us from the EU to do the serving, washing-up etc. etc.
I guess the fruit farmers and suchlike will have to pay decent wages to whoever they can recruit, too, if the young Europeans decide not to bother this year...
If - and it's a big IF - lots of unemployed Brits decide to retrain as waiters and fruitpickers, well and good - as long as they get a proper wage...
Yes, of course - and therein might lie a further problem...especially for the many whose disposable income has been slashed by the effects of the pandemic (or by Brexit-related issues).
Hospitality may find employing UK based people easier. First, because so many restaurants, pubs etc are located in towns and cities so there's a large potential labour pool on their doorstep. Second, there are lots of people who have done some form of hospitality work before - waiting tables or serving behind a bar are common occupations for students trying to earn a few quid, or paying their way as they tour Europe or further afield.
Wages will still be a problem. Students aren't (usually) looking for a job that can pay their rent and living expenses (any job that does that will need to be close to full time, and so not work with study - leaving them to take out student loans and hope they can get a proper job before the interest builds up too much) and so will generally be OK with minimum wage or a bit above that. Likewise, young people looking to supplement touring somewhere while they stay in cheap hostels or sleep on the train to the next city on their trip may also be OK with minimum wage or above. People who have rent/mortgage to pay, who don't want to rely on foodbanks, etc will find they can't manage to live off even a "living wage" job.
I'm guessing this will be the picture yes - not necessarily all Eastern European, but in a very bureaucratic, unresponsive way (the talk of quotas for certain occupations speaks to this).
As I understand it, the majority of cafes, restaurants, and similar businesses are not making vast sums of money. 15% or so of businesses in the UK hospitality sector fail each year (3 times more than average). "Simply accept lower profits" doesn't seem like a viable solution.
Your last point is right on the mark, though. If you pay staff in restaurants a decent wage, you also have to pay Copenhagen prices for a meal out. As usual, when you make something more expensive, there'll be less demand for it: if the average couple's budget won't change, so if the price of a meal out doubles, they get to eat out half as often, and in practice will probably eat out much less often than that.
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
The 'vast majority' of owners are private equity firms and/or shareholders. The relatively small number of independent restaurants are not in the firing line here, and if they put in the hours then kudos to them - still not an excuse to pay their staff less than is required to live on, mind.
If everyone in hospitality jobs were paid a living wage, the average wage would go up. People working hospitality jobs would also like to go out to eat from time to time.
It turns out that there isn't a simple relationship between staff wages and meal prices, as one would expect given that in a free market economy prices are determined by supply demand equilibrium, rather than supply cost alone.
Not I talked about the number of 'owners' (or, businesses if you prefer). Obviously there are a very large number of chain restaurants with a single owner (which maybe a corporate entity rather than an individual).I don't know the numbers but I expect that the number of owners running independent restaurants exceeds the number of chains by a quite significant number. That's without considering the extent to which the restaurant business operates franchises.
I also consider the independent restaurants to be well and truly in the firing line. In Jan 2017 we held our annual Burns' Night in a small local independent restaurant (the owner being a supporter, despite that we make sure the minimum suggested donation to attend allows us to pay her enough to cover costs and staff salaries at above living wage levels for the evening), she was considering closing because out of her 6 regular staff half were EU citizens and if they couldn't remain after Brexit she couldn't see how she could recruit anyone to take their place (fortunately for her, that's not been an issue as her staff have been able to continue living here). Another local restaurant I've eaten at a lot over the years closed last year because their take-out business wasn't bringing in enough to cover the costs without the sit-in restaurant being open, and despite being a much loved and popular restaurant profit margins had never been big enough to build up a large reserve to sink into the business for an indefinite period and after almost 20 years she decided it was time for her to hang up her pinny and retire.
That is certainly true, and not something I've denied.
If we consider an increase in hourly wage from £10 to £15, how much will that raise prices if it's all passed on to the customers bill? Let's assume that a server can manage 5 tables of customers and each table is on average 4 people and they're there for an hour, and we'll also assume that time spent by a server is matched by someone in the kitchen - so, that extra £5 per hour per person works out at £10 per hour spread across 20 people, or an extra 50p on each meal. An inexpensive meal out, including some drinks, wouldn't be less than £10 - so a 50% increase in salaries would only increase prices by less than 5%.
Exactly. And you may not even see that 5% increase because of the other factors controlling prices.
I am not sure how pre training would work. Who would pay? Waiting is more than just putting down plates.
Normally the expected 'market correction' (to use the preferred euphemism) would be a very bad thing for everyone who loses their job in it, but if a lot of them have got new jobs anyway, it might not be so terrible.
I think that you both may be pushing at an open door. See, for example
https://www.hughbaird.ac.uk/subject-area/hospitality-catering-l20
A Further Education college (in UK usage, when we had polytechnics they provided degree level ('Higher Education') teaching while 'Further Education' is above school level teaching but below degree level and is often vocational) but not unusual in teaching the skills one might need in hospitality. And while I don't know the details someone clearly pays for it.
Quite often, the colleges have restaurants open to the public to allow the students hands-on practice on (almost) real customers: these can be good, cheap places for works lunches.
https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/05/jersey-french-threat-cut-electricity-post-brexit-licences-boats
Lights out? An unlooked-for, albeit hopefully unlikely, effect of Brexit...
In Scotland, yes. In England it's a mixed picture. The town where I grew has education structured on the basis of 11-16 secondary schools and all post-16 education delivered by FE colleges. This is still pretty common but being eroded by academisation as schools want to hang onto their pupils into the 6th form.
Generally, most wait staff say they prefer the tip system over a decent wage and no tips, because they think they make more money that way.
I don't really see why the compensation structure for the person who brings me food should look different from the person who helps me try on shoes, but there you are.
But to a certain extent that's an equilibrium based on current circumstances, and afaict at least in the US what was being proposed was a minimum wage + tips, not a replacement of tips with a minimum wage.
[citation needed]
https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57003069
Wahay! It's like the Cod Wars all over again!
How are tips to be handled? Are they pooled and then divided amongst the wait staff, or does each person directly pocket them? And are they declared for tax?
I think it should be wage and tips at the discretion of the customer but it is not.
That varies between restaurants. Some restaurants operate a tip pool, where tips are divided among the staff, or a tip-sharing scheme where a fraction of each waiter's tips are shared with back-of-house staff, but some don't.
Are they declared for tax? Well, they're supposed to be. Anything that goes through your employer's payroll system will get reported to the IRS (tip pools, credit card tips, etc. will leave a record.) Tipped employees are required to report their tips monthy to their employer, so their employer can withhold enough tax. The employer has to file their own annual returns, and if they report less than 8% tips on gross sales, the IRS assumes you're all lying, and requires you to allocate extra tip income to your employees.
But you can be quite certain that few people report 100% of cash tips.
They should both pay their full taxes.
In the early 2000s, I was subject to 2 full tax audits on my returns. Both showed that I'd fully and properly disclosed my income (sad to say, unlike some others). Each audit cost me about $40,000 on top of all the time spent answering query after query.
Tipping culture is different around the world, in French theatres the usher who shows you to your seat works for tips and you give them €1 for showing your party to their seats. Anyone who works in any kind of way should be paid enough from their job to live on. Of course this is not the case even for full time workers
I'm afraid my response to this kind of nonsense is "I don't want your service. You have a pointless function. I can find my own seat. Go away."
No usher? - you fall ar*e over t*t, and annoy everybody for miles around...