Does anyone remember that awards show when Fiona Apple got on stage and mumbled that strange 'acceptance' speech where she basically said that it made no sense for her to exist? That was the speech that threw her credibility right out the window with her music career, but she didn't leave without making an impression.
It was short, like a teenage 'life sucks' retort, and highly unconventional, since she basically thanked noone. Granted, it was refreshing to see someone give a speech where they didn't prattle on about God or the fans or their agent and roll off names that nobody knows; but we don't want to be remembered for the wrong reasons.
What does this have to do with the National Public Service Week? At first glance, nothing. But then consider the messaging of the Conservative government during this so-called appreciation week. The Statement by the Prime Minister talks about the dedication of public servants and how fitting this year's theme is: 'Proudly Serving Canadians'. But this line was the true coup de grace: "I look forward to continuing to work with our public service to enhance the prosperity and well-being of Canadians.”
If by 'working with' you mean cutting jobs, removing severance, slashing budgets, and the newly-minted attack on sick days which is about to be announced sometime today to align with the ceremonial kick off of our 'appreciation' week, then this government has really outdone itself. How ironic to start a day meant to honour the public service with a kick off that is a ceremonial punting of our benefits.
It's a lot like waking up on Mother's Day and having to put out the fire in the kitchen that the kids started while trying to make breakfast in bed for you. Except in that scenario, there are nothing but good intentions. It baffles me that the government would choose to introduce this measure in a week that's dedicated to us. Did they really think that we would be too busy beaming from self-importance to realize that our benefits were being slashed? That we would all be grazing on smiley cookies and applause, oblivious to the fact that the measures designed to make us more 'effective' like the private sector are going to diminish our quality of life?
It's not certain what form this 'effectiveness' will be, but it's a pretty safe bet that the government will seek to reduce sick days for the public service, regardless of how the policy will be rolled out or presented. Every time this government has wanted the public service to be more effective, cutting back on budgets, staff and benefits has been the name of the game.
So in a way, this is a lot like the Fiona Apple speech: short, highly unconventional, thanking noone. And very likely to be remembered for all the wrong reasons.
Remember public servants based in Ottawa: when you go to the National Public Service Week barbecue which is supposed to be a symbolic gesture to thank you for your dedication and professionalism, and all the insincere words cause you to choke just a little bit on your badly charred hamburger- take a sick day. While you still have them.
Monday, June 10, 2013
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Stamp it Out
Canada Post wants people to accept junk mail again. They claim that people will benefit by being closer to their community if they accept junk mail, when this is a pitiful last-ditch attempt to make paper mail relevant again to an online and paperless society. While it's understandable that Canada Post has to do something to keep it alive and kicking, this is definitely a step in the wrong direction.
The organization is delusional if they think that anyone in their right mind believes that junk mail will link them into their community. Saving 50 cents on soup doesn't make you an engaged citizen. Junk mail is just that: junk. It's stuff that nobody wants to know that they couldn't figure out on their own if they just searched on Google. It's a tired medium that people have no time for and just adds to the recycling bins at the end of the week.
It also perpetuates the notion that Canada Post exists so that grandma can send you a birthday card once a year with a $5 bill in it. The image of people eagerly awaiting and sifting through junk mail belongs to another era.
If Canada Post wants to stay relevant, they need to do it in a way that is actually relevant. They had the right idea when they thought that people want to be linked in to their community- that bit is true. So they should be innovating off this idea that you can engage meaningfully through the mail.
The future of Canada Post is not going to be in delivering letters, it will be through delivery. With more and more people online, more of us order online and those things need to get to us somehow. While FedEx and UPS lead the pack, let's be realistic: how many of us are home Monday to Friday between 9am and 5pm? It's far more reasonable to think that we can get to a Canada Post outlet and pick things up ourselves or that smaller things will show in our boxes.
The best innovation by far that Canada Post has had in recent years was their Christmas Turtles promotion, where you could send a pack of Turtles chocolates anywhere in Canada. The idea was sweet, cute and easy. It tapped into that idea of engaging with others through the mail and sending a thought, a treat, a surprise. More ideas like this year round would make more of us willing to head to a post office.
Canada Post should also aggressively recruit local Canadian-based businesses in order to be their exclusive carrier. We shop online a lot more now and the appetite to support local is there. This organization is going to have to compete and that would not be a bad thing for Canadians. But junk mail? Recycle that idea.
The organization is delusional if they think that anyone in their right mind believes that junk mail will link them into their community. Saving 50 cents on soup doesn't make you an engaged citizen. Junk mail is just that: junk. It's stuff that nobody wants to know that they couldn't figure out on their own if they just searched on Google. It's a tired medium that people have no time for and just adds to the recycling bins at the end of the week.
It also perpetuates the notion that Canada Post exists so that grandma can send you a birthday card once a year with a $5 bill in it. The image of people eagerly awaiting and sifting through junk mail belongs to another era.
If Canada Post wants to stay relevant, they need to do it in a way that is actually relevant. They had the right idea when they thought that people want to be linked in to their community- that bit is true. So they should be innovating off this idea that you can engage meaningfully through the mail.
The future of Canada Post is not going to be in delivering letters, it will be through delivery. With more and more people online, more of us order online and those things need to get to us somehow. While FedEx and UPS lead the pack, let's be realistic: how many of us are home Monday to Friday between 9am and 5pm? It's far more reasonable to think that we can get to a Canada Post outlet and pick things up ourselves or that smaller things will show in our boxes.
The best innovation by far that Canada Post has had in recent years was their Christmas Turtles promotion, where you could send a pack of Turtles chocolates anywhere in Canada. The idea was sweet, cute and easy. It tapped into that idea of engaging with others through the mail and sending a thought, a treat, a surprise. More ideas like this year round would make more of us willing to head to a post office.
Canada Post should also aggressively recruit local Canadian-based businesses in order to be their exclusive carrier. We shop online a lot more now and the appetite to support local is there. This organization is going to have to compete and that would not be a bad thing for Canadians. But junk mail? Recycle that idea.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Sharing the Misery
Today, I read with interest, a column by a New York family undertaking the "Live Below the Line" challenge, spending a week living on $1.50 per day of food to get a sense of the extreme poverty line according to the World Bank. The couple decided to keep their young children out of the challenge and opted to try it for themselves, with cheat items like seasonings and cereal, and gladly accepting donations in the forms of cookies at work, when they were offered by friends.
The intention of the couple after this exercise is to donate the money that they would have otherwise spent on themselves during the course of a regular weeks' worth of groceries and have a greater awareness of how hard things can be for other people. It's a laudable goal, a good cause and it's probably a good example to their children so that they can learn and appreciate all that they have. But what really surprised me were the comments.
What could be so offensive about trying to live on a reduced budget and help other people in need? Apparently, it's the very fact that this couple even had the choice which is the problem. The backlash came from those people who have lived this way themselves, have been forced to include their children because there simply was no money available, and who couldn't afford in any way to cheat with seasonings or cream cheese. The tone of the article may have come across particularly bad when the author referred to this process as trying to solve a puzzle and trying to get it right- as if this was a game, when for many, this is a question of basic survival.
While this probably and justifiably caused the backlash, in the author's defense, I would like to say that this is still a good thing to do. Many anti-poverty movements are based on sharing the wealth, but it's not such a bad thing to share the misery, either. On the one hand, it causes increased awareness of what other people go through, empathy, relativity towards food and our attitude towards it and a general feeling against waste.
When you're forced to see food as a necessity and not a luxury and think about what you CAN have rather than what you would LIKE to have, it brings home the basic message that everyone has to eat and make good, responsible choices. You get a greater appreciation of the wealth and abundance that exists in the Western world and how this enriches your life. You also don't waste a scrap or conveniently 'forget' about lettuce. A reduced budget also means that you don't have access to convenience foods which are pre-packaged, meaning that you have to think and plan out your meals. This exercise teaches us to be more reasonable in our needs and many would agree that this is a lesson that people in the Western world sorely need.
So perhaps this couple should not be patting itself on its backs or making a big show of all that they have learned, although the article doesn't reek of self-congratulations, as some commentators suggest. A week of poverty living doesn't exactly make you Jesus or 'one of the people.' It can make you more aware and more responsible. It's a small lesson and a good reminder- and nothing to sniff at. Sacrifice, however small, is still sacrifice. These people aren't throwing caviar out the window. And you can bet that they're looking around the grocery store with very different, more considerate, eyes.
The intention of the couple after this exercise is to donate the money that they would have otherwise spent on themselves during the course of a regular weeks' worth of groceries and have a greater awareness of how hard things can be for other people. It's a laudable goal, a good cause and it's probably a good example to their children so that they can learn and appreciate all that they have. But what really surprised me were the comments.
What could be so offensive about trying to live on a reduced budget and help other people in need? Apparently, it's the very fact that this couple even had the choice which is the problem. The backlash came from those people who have lived this way themselves, have been forced to include their children because there simply was no money available, and who couldn't afford in any way to cheat with seasonings or cream cheese. The tone of the article may have come across particularly bad when the author referred to this process as trying to solve a puzzle and trying to get it right- as if this was a game, when for many, this is a question of basic survival.
While this probably and justifiably caused the backlash, in the author's defense, I would like to say that this is still a good thing to do. Many anti-poverty movements are based on sharing the wealth, but it's not such a bad thing to share the misery, either. On the one hand, it causes increased awareness of what other people go through, empathy, relativity towards food and our attitude towards it and a general feeling against waste.
When you're forced to see food as a necessity and not a luxury and think about what you CAN have rather than what you would LIKE to have, it brings home the basic message that everyone has to eat and make good, responsible choices. You get a greater appreciation of the wealth and abundance that exists in the Western world and how this enriches your life. You also don't waste a scrap or conveniently 'forget' about lettuce. A reduced budget also means that you don't have access to convenience foods which are pre-packaged, meaning that you have to think and plan out your meals. This exercise teaches us to be more reasonable in our needs and many would agree that this is a lesson that people in the Western world sorely need.
So perhaps this couple should not be patting itself on its backs or making a big show of all that they have learned, although the article doesn't reek of self-congratulations, as some commentators suggest. A week of poverty living doesn't exactly make you Jesus or 'one of the people.' It can make you more aware and more responsible. It's a small lesson and a good reminder- and nothing to sniff at. Sacrifice, however small, is still sacrifice. These people aren't throwing caviar out the window. And you can bet that they're looking around the grocery store with very different, more considerate, eyes.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Asking for It- A Little Respect, that is
It's amusing that a Slovakian cyclist decided to celebrate his second place in the Tour of Flandrs in Belgium by pinching the backside of a 'podium girl' over the weekend, but it's a lot less amusing when you consider the implications of his 'joke.' While this has caused laughs, speculation, criticism and debate, it has also brought up another interesting point, much more galling, as cited from the Yahoo story: "More than a few people have pointed out that the woman in question was planting a wet one on the cheek of winner Fabian Cancellara, as if that meant she were somehow asking for it."
'Asking for it'- this is probably one of the more problematic things that could be said. Let's consider this: 'asking for it' is commonly used in what some of us consider the outdated vocabulary of 'blaming the victim' which used to be quite popular in early sexual assault and rape cases. Most of us in the Western world consider this expression to be extremely offensive, most of us, being, you know, women.
'Asking for it' implies that women dress provocatively and make themselves attractive for the sole purpose of being grabbed and assaulted, that they can't and don't say no, and that flaunting of certain physical traits is an open invitation. This assumes the absolute worse in women and fans the flames of misogyny previously trumpeted by moralists, men, conservatives and those women who judge all other women by their own terrible examples.
It may be time for us, as a civilized society with half a brain, to let go of this term. Sexual freedom and the right to dress the way we want are hallmarks of women's rights, not running around with signs that say men are bad. It is generally accepted that if a woman dresses in a sexy manner, it's actually the responsibility of the men around her to show some restraint, decency and civility by not assaulting her- not the other way around. It is not the responsibility of a woman to dress conservatively to properly demonstrate that she does not want to be sexually assaulted. These are the basics. It's a shame that not everyone gets this.
So while this situation is amusing, awkward, silly, probably misunderstood, it's a good reminder that maybe we should re-evaluate old traditions and expressions. Podium girls are probably not a necessary part of the sport of cycling, much in the same way that cheerleaders generally don't add anything to the sporting events they attend. It's also funny in the reporting of this event that there is no name for the podium girl- she's just a backside, as far as the stories are concerned. It's what they hired her for, right? Maybe that's bad job criteria.
As summer rolls around, with temptation abounding from all sides, let's put out this reminder of look, but don't touch. A woman with a beautiful body is a beautiful sight, but she is not 'asking for it' by wearing short shorts. What we are asking for is a little respect and a little space. When we dress to show off our bodies or let our legs breathe in the summertime, it means we're comfortable with ourselves and we trust in the freedom and protection of our civil rights which entitles us to feel that way. Can't the rest of the world show us that they feel the same way?
'Asking for it'- this is probably one of the more problematic things that could be said. Let's consider this: 'asking for it' is commonly used in what some of us consider the outdated vocabulary of 'blaming the victim' which used to be quite popular in early sexual assault and rape cases. Most of us in the Western world consider this expression to be extremely offensive, most of us, being, you know, women.
'Asking for it' implies that women dress provocatively and make themselves attractive for the sole purpose of being grabbed and assaulted, that they can't and don't say no, and that flaunting of certain physical traits is an open invitation. This assumes the absolute worse in women and fans the flames of misogyny previously trumpeted by moralists, men, conservatives and those women who judge all other women by their own terrible examples.
It may be time for us, as a civilized society with half a brain, to let go of this term. Sexual freedom and the right to dress the way we want are hallmarks of women's rights, not running around with signs that say men are bad. It is generally accepted that if a woman dresses in a sexy manner, it's actually the responsibility of the men around her to show some restraint, decency and civility by not assaulting her- not the other way around. It is not the responsibility of a woman to dress conservatively to properly demonstrate that she does not want to be sexually assaulted. These are the basics. It's a shame that not everyone gets this.
So while this situation is amusing, awkward, silly, probably misunderstood, it's a good reminder that maybe we should re-evaluate old traditions and expressions. Podium girls are probably not a necessary part of the sport of cycling, much in the same way that cheerleaders generally don't add anything to the sporting events they attend. It's also funny in the reporting of this event that there is no name for the podium girl- she's just a backside, as far as the stories are concerned. It's what they hired her for, right? Maybe that's bad job criteria.
As summer rolls around, with temptation abounding from all sides, let's put out this reminder of look, but don't touch. A woman with a beautiful body is a beautiful sight, but she is not 'asking for it' by wearing short shorts. What we are asking for is a little respect and a little space. When we dress to show off our bodies or let our legs breathe in the summertime, it means we're comfortable with ourselves and we trust in the freedom and protection of our civil rights which entitles us to feel that way. Can't the rest of the world show us that they feel the same way?
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
The International Day of Happiness
When I got into work today, I saw brightly coloured balloons on a sign that proclaimed today as the International Day of Happiness. When I looked up what this meant, I came across this statement:
"The day recognizes that happiness is a fundamental human goal, and calls upon countries to approach public policies in ways that improve the well being of all peoples.
By designating a special day for happiness, the UN aims to focus world attention on the idea that economic growth must be inclusive, equitable, and balanced, such that it promotes sustainable development, and alleviates poverty. Additionally the UN acknowledges that in order to attain global happiness, economic development must be accompanied by social and environmental well being." (http://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/un/happiness-day)
While most of us would have that first instinct of 'oh, how nice,' my second, more suspicious analytical mind kicked in with, 'so what?'
The International Day of Happiness doesn't actually do anything. One could argue that most days are the same, and while they don't achieve any specific objectives, they raise awareness, in the same vein that tomorrow, for example, is the International Day for the Elimination of Racism (March 21st). One of the primary differences is that racism is a tangible issue with a generally well-accepted definition; happiness, on other hand, is a more slippery concept.
To think that this is a notion to raise awareness about the pursuit of happiness as being a fundamental human goal rings hollow when people don't fundamentally agree what happiness is or what is required to get there. Declaring a special day to think about it doesn't make it more relevant or less true, than, say, for example, proclaiming an international food appreciation day. Consider this slightly modified version:
"The day recognizes that food is a fundamental human goal and calls upon countries to approach public policies in ways that improve the well being of all peoples.
By designating a special day for food, the UN aims to focus world attention on the idea that economic growth must be inclusive, equitable, and balanced, such that it promotes sustainable development, and alleviates poverty. Additionally the UN acknowledges that in order to attain food, economic development must be accompanied by social and environmental well being."
By replacing the exact same statement with the word 'food' instead of 'happiness', this message seems even more hollow. Actions are going to be the real determinant of whether or not certain designated days are successful and those actions are not going to be limited to putting up balloons. If the International Food Appreciation Day was accompanied by a global campaign to get food donations for needy countries or fill the stores of food banks in small communities, then it would mean something. Just as the International Day for the Elimination of Racism includes awareness campaigns, remembrance and important history lessons, as well as current examples of racist practices and how they can be stopped or mitigated.
So what exactly does the International Day of Happiness promise, other than balloons and the celebration of a highly Western concept that is ill-defined at the best of times? Nicely encouraging world governments to be mindful of the welfare of its citizens when making its policies is not really doing anything. In fact, it's laughable when you consider that Cyprus proposed to take money from citizens individual savings account to bail the country out, Canada is about to release yet another draconian budget, the European Union is headed for collapse, environmental policies are being written by oil and gas corporations and Chinese factory workers are throwing themselves off buildings while making ipads.
But let's all take a moment to enjoy some balloons.
"The day recognizes that happiness is a fundamental human goal, and calls upon countries to approach public policies in ways that improve the well being of all peoples.
By designating a special day for happiness, the UN aims to focus world attention on the idea that economic growth must be inclusive, equitable, and balanced, such that it promotes sustainable development, and alleviates poverty. Additionally the UN acknowledges that in order to attain global happiness, economic development must be accompanied by social and environmental well being." (http://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/un/happiness-day)
While most of us would have that first instinct of 'oh, how nice,' my second, more suspicious analytical mind kicked in with, 'so what?'
The International Day of Happiness doesn't actually do anything. One could argue that most days are the same, and while they don't achieve any specific objectives, they raise awareness, in the same vein that tomorrow, for example, is the International Day for the Elimination of Racism (March 21st). One of the primary differences is that racism is a tangible issue with a generally well-accepted definition; happiness, on other hand, is a more slippery concept.
To think that this is a notion to raise awareness about the pursuit of happiness as being a fundamental human goal rings hollow when people don't fundamentally agree what happiness is or what is required to get there. Declaring a special day to think about it doesn't make it more relevant or less true, than, say, for example, proclaiming an international food appreciation day. Consider this slightly modified version:
"The day recognizes that food is a fundamental human goal and calls upon countries to approach public policies in ways that improve the well being of all peoples.
By designating a special day for food, the UN aims to focus world attention on the idea that economic growth must be inclusive, equitable, and balanced, such that it promotes sustainable development, and alleviates poverty. Additionally the UN acknowledges that in order to attain food, economic development must be accompanied by social and environmental well being."
By replacing the exact same statement with the word 'food' instead of 'happiness', this message seems even more hollow. Actions are going to be the real determinant of whether or not certain designated days are successful and those actions are not going to be limited to putting up balloons. If the International Food Appreciation Day was accompanied by a global campaign to get food donations for needy countries or fill the stores of food banks in small communities, then it would mean something. Just as the International Day for the Elimination of Racism includes awareness campaigns, remembrance and important history lessons, as well as current examples of racist practices and how they can be stopped or mitigated.
So what exactly does the International Day of Happiness promise, other than balloons and the celebration of a highly Western concept that is ill-defined at the best of times? Nicely encouraging world governments to be mindful of the welfare of its citizens when making its policies is not really doing anything. In fact, it's laughable when you consider that Cyprus proposed to take money from citizens individual savings account to bail the country out, Canada is about to release yet another draconian budget, the European Union is headed for collapse, environmental policies are being written by oil and gas corporations and Chinese factory workers are throwing themselves off buildings while making ipads.
But let's all take a moment to enjoy some balloons.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Overtime Silliness
A police officer in Chicago is suing for overtime that he put in for answering emails while off-duty. While this case has been dismissed as 'silliness' by a former mayor of Chicago, this attitude is just indicative of the 24-hour work culture that North Americans are living every day- and not getting paid for.
There are many factors in this particular case that will have to be reviewed to determine its' success or not, but regardless of the outcome, people should be thinking about the amount of time they're putting into work and never getting back. Despite the argument that Blackberry-strapped employees can choose to turn off their machines when they leave the office, the truth of the matter is that many employers expect their employees to be available around the clock- and this expectation is the problem.
Every workplace is supposedly committed to the idea of 'worklife balance'. Despite this PR motto, most workers live the reality of the unspoken demands of their office. The pressure is more or less constant and employees who don't respond after hours are often overlooked for promotions or perceived as less reliable workers than their email happy counterparts. The virtual desktop also brings it unspoken pressures with it to keep producing, while travelling, sick, or even, at times, on vacation.
Before people dismiss this item as silliness or anti-capitalist, people should remember that it was not that long ago when workers' demands for weekends was also considered 'silliness'. North Americans have seen a steady increase of heart attacks, cancer rates and the cost of living, all part of a perfect storm that predicts early death, mostly caused by work pressures, poor diets and inordinate amounts of time sitting. This is not a hard puzzle to put together.
The constant demands of work and home life have many of us feeling like hamsters caught in a wheel- running and getting no further ahead. We should start re-claiming our time and our quality of life. Our relationships, our private time, our health- these are the 'silly' things that we are trying to protect and preserve. Our jobs are not worth everything.
There are many factors in this particular case that will have to be reviewed to determine its' success or not, but regardless of the outcome, people should be thinking about the amount of time they're putting into work and never getting back. Despite the argument that Blackberry-strapped employees can choose to turn off their machines when they leave the office, the truth of the matter is that many employers expect their employees to be available around the clock- and this expectation is the problem.
Every workplace is supposedly committed to the idea of 'worklife balance'. Despite this PR motto, most workers live the reality of the unspoken demands of their office. The pressure is more or less constant and employees who don't respond after hours are often overlooked for promotions or perceived as less reliable workers than their email happy counterparts. The virtual desktop also brings it unspoken pressures with it to keep producing, while travelling, sick, or even, at times, on vacation.
Before people dismiss this item as silliness or anti-capitalist, people should remember that it was not that long ago when workers' demands for weekends was also considered 'silliness'. North Americans have seen a steady increase of heart attacks, cancer rates and the cost of living, all part of a perfect storm that predicts early death, mostly caused by work pressures, poor diets and inordinate amounts of time sitting. This is not a hard puzzle to put together.
The constant demands of work and home life have many of us feeling like hamsters caught in a wheel- running and getting no further ahead. We should start re-claiming our time and our quality of life. Our relationships, our private time, our health- these are the 'silly' things that we are trying to protect and preserve. Our jobs are not worth everything.
Friday, February 1, 2013
Thou Shall Not Tip
It started off as a funny post, but ended with someone losing their job. Applebee's has fired the waitress at the heart of the 'God Tip' controversy, after the pastor complained to the manager of the restaurant. Many have already seen the 'I give God 10%, why should I give you 18?' which was scrawled on the receipt with an emphatic 0 in the spot for a tip.
Does anyone else find it strange that a pastor would only give 10% of their energy to God? I'm not up on my Church organizational chart, but I'm pretty sure that if you're a pastor, you're expected to take on holy duties as your career and most of us, if I'm not entirely mistaken, are expected to give more than 10% to our jobs. It's an odd calculation and I'm a little more than curious to see the math behind it. Beyond the concerns regarding the insulting jab and no tip, I have to wonder what kind of perfomance evaluation at the end of the year God is going to give this person.
It is off-putting in the first place that someone would use God as an excuse to not tip someone in the service industry, although I bet that people who work in the service industry have heard it all before. A similar case occurred years back when a high end customer at a nice restaurant left the wait staff an unusual 'tip' writing 'get a real job' in the tip line provided. While getting stiffed on tips is something of an occupational hazard in North America, it seems unacceptable to my mind that we continue to undermine people in the service industry by not providing them a decent living wage.
Now I understand that the North American attitude towards service is that tips are incentives. Economists and sociologists have demonstrated that people respond to financial incentives, and this can often encourage them to do more diligent and courteous work. Understood. One only needs to look towards Europe, with their snooty nose-in-the-air wait staff who grudgingly serve you both hot coffee and looks of disdain. Nobody wants to go to that model. What Europe does provide is a living wage to their servers, as TVA (the taxes automatically put on your bill) include service.
This means that the waiter in Europe know that they don't have to cozy up to you for a tip and they don't bother. It also prevents waiters falling all over themselves to provide excellent service to cheap nasty people. It may be possible to avoid both pitfalls if we would get rid of the notion of tip-based wages and just give servers minimum wage. Tip-based wages are often lower than the minimum wage with the idea that incentives will follow from the customers themselves. But what we should strive for is a minimum wage so that waitstaff can live and a tip option so that they can thrive.
The shift in the culture will then veer away from the 'I will tip you if you're nice to me, but you've earned nothing from me yet', or the 'I don't tip people' approach. Wait staff will then know that they can get more mileage if they provide good service, but also, that they won't be insulted at the end of the night by someone who had to be served. And then we could all avoid scenarios like this one, when a waiter/waitress turns to the internet for sympathy for something they shouldn't have been made to suffer in the first place, and then be fired when their employer refuses to back them up and protect them as their employee.
Does anyone else find it strange that a pastor would only give 10% of their energy to God? I'm not up on my Church organizational chart, but I'm pretty sure that if you're a pastor, you're expected to take on holy duties as your career and most of us, if I'm not entirely mistaken, are expected to give more than 10% to our jobs. It's an odd calculation and I'm a little more than curious to see the math behind it. Beyond the concerns regarding the insulting jab and no tip, I have to wonder what kind of perfomance evaluation at the end of the year God is going to give this person.
It is off-putting in the first place that someone would use God as an excuse to not tip someone in the service industry, although I bet that people who work in the service industry have heard it all before. A similar case occurred years back when a high end customer at a nice restaurant left the wait staff an unusual 'tip' writing 'get a real job' in the tip line provided. While getting stiffed on tips is something of an occupational hazard in North America, it seems unacceptable to my mind that we continue to undermine people in the service industry by not providing them a decent living wage.
Now I understand that the North American attitude towards service is that tips are incentives. Economists and sociologists have demonstrated that people respond to financial incentives, and this can often encourage them to do more diligent and courteous work. Understood. One only needs to look towards Europe, with their snooty nose-in-the-air wait staff who grudgingly serve you both hot coffee and looks of disdain. Nobody wants to go to that model. What Europe does provide is a living wage to their servers, as TVA (the taxes automatically put on your bill) include service.
This means that the waiter in Europe know that they don't have to cozy up to you for a tip and they don't bother. It also prevents waiters falling all over themselves to provide excellent service to cheap nasty people. It may be possible to avoid both pitfalls if we would get rid of the notion of tip-based wages and just give servers minimum wage. Tip-based wages are often lower than the minimum wage with the idea that incentives will follow from the customers themselves. But what we should strive for is a minimum wage so that waitstaff can live and a tip option so that they can thrive.
The shift in the culture will then veer away from the 'I will tip you if you're nice to me, but you've earned nothing from me yet', or the 'I don't tip people' approach. Wait staff will then know that they can get more mileage if they provide good service, but also, that they won't be insulted at the end of the night by someone who had to be served. And then we could all avoid scenarios like this one, when a waiter/waitress turns to the internet for sympathy for something they shouldn't have been made to suffer in the first place, and then be fired when their employer refuses to back them up and protect them as their employee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)