MK

Last night I took my wife and three friends to MK. For the most part the dinner was good but when presented with a $1500 bill that had a 15% gratuity "built in" I was disappointed. I understand that larger parties typically have gratuities added but a party of 5 does not a large party make.

Does anyone have any thoughts as to why my server did this? Did he peg me as a bad tipper? Is this an MK thing?

I added another 5% to the bill but left feeling uncomfortable. Any thoughts?

FIFTEEN HUNDRED DOLLARS??? $300 per at MK???! EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK!!!

What on Earth did you have???????????

The Bottles of Krug had the biggest impact. The White Burgundy and Bordeaux weren't easy on the wallet either.

What were you planning on tipping?

FWIW, just looked at the MK list posted on line and found IMHO the best deal on the list SQN "Just for the Love of It" at $271 which puts that wine at about $200 LESS than retail at the moment....

Honestly, an included 15% tip would be fine by me. Possibly it is a result of working in the resturant biz for a number of years but my default tip for decent service is 20% and more for truely excellent service. I rarely... once in a blue moon... give less than 15% and that is for being ignored. Don't get me wrong, I'm far from having money to throw around or donate but after spending a long time in the back of the house and working in sales now, I understand some of the things that cause poor service. I understand that most people dont look at tiping this way and I probably have a bit of sympathy for FoH folks but I have a hard time harpooning folks for an off night.

That said, it is odd to have a gartuity attached for a party of 5. It is possible that they do it for anything more than a 4 top. It would be irregular but not unheard of.

I wonder if it is because of the expensive wine you ordered. Sometimes waitstaff assume you won't tip on the wine, which obviously alters the final tab, so building in the gratuity is a way to make sure they get a (huge) tip.
I hope you enjoyed everything!

I was p[lanning on tipping 20%. Service has to be awful for me to dip below 20%. I have eaten at MK a # of times this past year and have always tipped between 20% and 25% so it further baffled me that I was hit with the "added gratuity." If I were problem diner wouldn't it be noted on my account?

You might want to just call MK and ask them directly. That way you'd know, plus if it turns out that the server added it in without management approval, they'd be aware of the situation and could act accordingly.

Perhaps this should be its own thread, but since it's related to the MK discussion -

Is it standard etiquette to tip off the full amount (including wine) when multiple and/or particularly expensive wine is involved? I've never been sure, but never really order expensive wine out so it hasn't come up. I do tip off the full amount (including alcohol) but we never spend all that much on alcohol when dining out. I wish we could . . .

But intuitively, it doesn't seem fair to me that on a $1500 bill, assuming say somewhere from 1/4 to half comes frim wine, you should be tipping off $1500. As opposed to say 20% of food costs plus some set tip on the wine (per bottle? a lower percentage?)

Are my intuitions just completely wrong on this?

It's normal to tip on the value of the total bill, including wine, and you aren't alone in thinking that that's stupid.

The processes for opening a $500 bottle of wine and a $30 bottle of wine are, as far as I can tell, identical. Why should one cost $100 and the other $6?

OK, still in the world of metaphysics (and as someone who almost never orders wine with dinner because we just can't afford it)

I always assumed that the idea is that your waiter is a kind of salesperson by commission for your food - in an ideal world, they're there to match the right food and beverages with the right person. Obviously, there's a lot of service involved as well, but that idea would explain the anomoly above.

But then, when we're in a restaurant and it's one of the rare occasions where we've ordered drinks from the bar while we're waiting - who gets that tip? We usually pay that bill seperately and tip the bartender - is that correct?

I don't think anyone would argue about settling up with the bartender-some places insist on it.

The processes for opening a $500 bottle of wine and a $30 bottle of wine are, as far as I can tell, identical. Why should one cost $100 and the other $6?

The processes for bringing you a plate of ham and eggs and one of shaved peccorino fennel-infused free-range quail are pretty similar too.

Basically, you're tipping the decor whenever you eat out, not the service.

Mike G wrote:

The processes for opening a $500 bottle of wine and a $30 bottle of wine are, as far as I can tell, identical. Why should one cost $100 and the other $6?

The processes for bringing you a plate of ham and eggs and one of shaved peccorino fennel-infused free-range quail are pretty similar too.

Basically, you're tipping the decor whenever you eat out, not the service.

I agree with that, but the decor is the same if I order the most expensive bottle or the cheapest bottle

gleam wrote:

Mike G wrote:

The processes for opening a $500 bottle of wine and a $30 bottle of wine are, as far as I can tell, identical. Why should one cost $100 and the other $6?

The processes for bringing you a plate of ham and eggs and one of shaved peccorino fennel-infused free-range quail are pretty similar too.

Basically, you're tipping the decor whenever you eat out, not the service.

I agree with that, but the decor is the same if I order the most expensive bottle or the cheapest bottle

It's also the same if you order the lobster or split an appetizer.

So why not just tip $2 per delivered dish, $1 per drink, $5 per bottle of wine, etc? Why do we tip a percentage?

Sigh.

If you are worried about tipping to much, you should probably just eat/drink at home.

If I have the money to get a $500 bottle of wine, I have the money to tip 20% on it.

I am merely questioning the US method of tipping as a whole. Why not have service included in the cost of each dish and pay the waitstaff a bit more than $3-4/hour?

I eat out frequently, and I'm a generous tipper. I'm not going to boycott the system, but I can certainly express my distaste for it and my hope for change.

gleam wrote:Well, wasn't that passive-aggressive.

If I have the money to get a $500 bottle of wine, I have the money to tip 20% on it.

I am merely questioning the US method of tipping as a whole. Why not have service included in the cost of each dish and pay the waitstaff a bit more than $3-4/hour?

I eat out frequently, and I'm a generous tipper. I'm not going to boycott the system, but I can certainly express my distaste for it and my hope for change.

While I agree with you in theory, you could argue that by having the customers pay the waitstaff, their allegiance is to the customers, as opposed to the establishment. In theory, this results in better service.

This point was indirectly raised by David Burke a few days ago on The Today Show in a segment dealing with restaurant and kitchen cleanliness. He advocated that people question the waitstaff about a restaurant's cleanliness because they are indebted to the customer. Of course, how likely is it that a waitperson would be honest about poor kitchen conditions when that would only drive away the customers (and the waitperson's source of income). But, anyway, his point was that the servers are more tied to the customers due to the tipping system.

Mike G wrote:

The processes for opening a $500 bottle of wine and a $30 bottle of wine are, as far as I can tell, identical. Why should one cost $100 and the other $6?

The processes for bringing you a plate of ham and eggs and one of shaved peccorino fennel-infused free-range quail are pretty similar too.

Basically, you're tipping the decor whenever you eat out, not the service.

The process may be the same, but that's like saying that the process for making a steak is the same at Ponderosa and Primehouse. I'm not a service fetishist (nor decor either) but there's no doubt that servers at different restaurants have different levels of skill at things like finding a good balance between absent and clingy, timing the delivery of dishes to the table, etc.

I don't have three and four figure checks to pay very often, but in general, I would feel less compelled to tip 20% if my bill got into that area, in the same way that I may tip 30% on a bill at someplace like Patty's Diner.

Sure, the waitstaff is indebted to the customer, but they're in more debt to the ones who buy wine. Which means (not in all, or even most, cases, but in far too many, from my experience) service suffers if you don't drink.

And David Burke's logic doesn't make much sense. If you ask the waiter if the kitchen is clean, and them getting 20% of your $300 tab relies on you sticking around, are they really going to tell you the truth and take that $60 hit? Some might. Would most?

Anyway, if Alinea, or Primehouse, or Kuma's, or Patty's want to attract the best talent, they can just pay them a higher wage, if they think they can reasonably pass on that cost to the customer.

From a Sep 2006 article in The Washington Post on tipping:

"It's a common belief that tips are based on service but Lynn [an associate professor at Cornell hospitality] argues it's all wrong. Research has shown that tips are rarely based on the quality of service, and are usually determined arbitrarily.

"Servers think there's a relationship between tips and service, but there isn't. How sunny it is outside literally has as big of an impact on a tip as the service," Lynn says.

One study showed that when waitresses wore flowers in their hair they earned 17 percent more than when they didn't. Another study suggests that waiters who squat beside tables receive an average tip of 18 percent, versus a 15 percent tip received by waiters who stand next to their tables.

Some waiters concede that tipping behavior has very little to do with service. Theresa Burkhart, a 31 year-old waitress and actress in Manhattan, says overtippers tend to overtip regardless of service, and undertippers tend to undertip; Canadians and Brits often tip 10 percent, while Japanese customers tip around 20 percent."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/12/AR2006091200809_pf.html

I do think tipping on a percentage is fairly silly. Flat service fees that restaurants are free to set and that you know in advance or are listed on the menu seems better to me. It'll never happen and I'll continue generally overtipping based on percentage, but it would be nice.

And I recognize that there seems to be a contradiction in

1) not balking at tipping on the full amount on food even if just a small number of (not overwhelmingly hard to prepare) very expensive items are involved

AND

2) balking at tipping full amount on multiple bottles of expensive wine

For me personally, it's the money involved in 2) that makes me balk. And if pushed, I would have to say 1) doesn't make a whole lot of sense either. Maybe I'm just used to 1) at this point or can more easily afford it so I've adopted it more unquestioningly.

i think i posted a thread here (or somewhere...) about a year ago regarding tipping on wine. i went out to lunch with a co-worker, and he insisted it was normal that people don't tip a full 15-20% on wine, but rather a smaller fixed amount per bottle.

after doing some research on the Internet, i came across many sites referencing this sort of practice and many people saying it was normal. i don't know if i agree or disagree, but to me I don't understand how you can execute it without looking cheap. the problem is if your bill is half wine, and you only tip 20% on the food portion then $10-15 a bottle on the wine, your net tip is still only 12-13% and you just look cheap...

dddane wrote:after doing some research on the Internet, i came across many sites referencing this sort of practice and many people saying it was normal. i don't know if i agree or disagree, but to me I don't understand how you can execute it without looking cheap. the problem is if your bill is half wine, and you only tip 20% on the food portion then $10-15 a bottle on the wine, your net tip is still only 12-13% and you just look cheap...

This is interesting. I'd love to hear from an experienced sommelier or maitre d' about their thoughts on the subject.

Came across this little piece that might be of interest:

http://www.winespectator.com/Wine/Archives/Show_Article/0,1275,5577,00.html

EDIT TO ADD: The direct link requires membership. But if you just google "tip on wine", site:winespecator.com, you can access several relevant pieces on their site without a membership.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22tip+on+wine%22+site%3Awinespectator.com&btnG=Google+Search

gleam wrote:Anyway, if Alinea, or Primehouse, or Kuma's, or Patty's want to attract the best talent, they can just pay them a higher wage, if they think they can reasonably pass on that cost to the customer.

I think Alinea thinks that they can attract the top talent because they can guarantee that their servers' tips will be better than at Kuma's or Patty's Diner based upon the percentage system. So they do not need to do anything like a wage hike (even if it is built into the cost of the dish) in order to attract the top talent. Anyway, my guess is that the restaurant does not reasonably believe that they can pass higher wage costs onto the customer. What is the going rate for food costs per dish? If they were to pile on a higher labor cost, the restaurant would either have to reduce the food costs (not desirable), cut workers or overhead, or increase the price of the dish.

In reality, however, there's no way the business would want to take that on when the current system passes the responsibility of paying server's wages to the customers.

What is more, would the servers want this? Under the current system, cash tipping [ahem] "allows" servers to reduce the amount of reportable income to the IRS. Under a non-tipping/European system, the servers would have W-2s issued with higher wages for which they'd be taxed accordingly.

aschie, I'm saying they could pay more and pass it on if the service charges were included in the bill already.

You can pay $190+20% or you can pay $225. And remember that this would be a universal change (we're magically transported to western europe, say), so they wouldn't have the allure of better tips elsewhere, just a better salary.

It would also keep waitstaff from screwing bussers out of their share of the tips (since everyone would be salaried).

As for the IRS issue: Awesome! Now I'm not only paying $100 for them to open a bottle of wine, but my taxes are getting hiked to fund them cheating on theirs!

Marquee wrote:If you are worried about tipping to much, you should probably just eat/drink at home.

But then how much should I tip the delivery guy?

gleam wrote:aschie, I'm saying they could pay more and pass it on if the service charges were included in the bill already.

Oh - okay. I misunderstood.

Like I said, I agree with you in theory.

As long as we're going here, there's something that I never understood, even as a beneficiary. Starbucks paid me one of the highest wages I ever made working retail, with the best benefits package, and yet we split the tips in the jar on the counter (which add up, believe me)

Don't get me wrong - it was an exhausting, crappy job. People can be really mean when they haven't had their coffee - and many Starbucks regulars want their lily gilded (you get paid the same no matter how many modifiers.) The hours are nearly as bad as waiters', they just start earlier - unlike waiters, however, we were paid a good bit more than minimum wage. The only downside I see is that there's no chance to meaningfully improve your salary as you get better at your job - where waiters at least can move up to a better restaurant.

Of course, I always dump my remaining change in the jar on the rare occasions I visit a coffee shop - but that's more an homage to how hard the job is.....