l8rpeace

I like these articles. But, what I'd really like are some examples of good and bad writing. This would actually help (as opposed to explaining the process behind it). Anyone have any examples?

Shocking as it might seem, pieces of this approach are still missing from some work environments. I've seen it first hand. Heck, I even asked a former colleague who is now at Zoom, "You're helping power the remote first experience. How is remote onboarding going, how's the culture of remote-only?" And it wasn't something they had nailed. I think it's a hard problem to solve. But shouldn't the people problems be the FIRST problems you solve?

It's subjective, but since there is some scale (from personal to professional), couldn't there be a way to classify this and filter it out? That would be a cool feature.

Yeah not even that sometimes...dates of employment, title, broad responsibilities (she wasn't a gardner, she was a nuclear physicist). Anything else potentially implies judgment and is open to interpretation/libel. That's how I've been trained in scenarios for references.

You really tell this story well. I could never voice my frustrations with cloud that I've had diving back into code lately. But you nail it - it's a time suck that really is a different Cloud DevOps (tm) skill set. Literal moment of personal clarity for me rn (however obvious this may be for the outside world and how dumb it might make me look). Seriously, thank you!

Yes! There cannot be an expectation of goodwill, especially with policy. While I personally think people should be more generous, I can't believe that policy should depend on it. Thank you for pointing this out and I will work to be more clear.

You are right and thank you for pointing that out. He hits these areas but, in my reading, fails to fully close the loop.

I feel that policy supported wage floors for tipping isn't addressed enough, if at all. Sure, they tried to get rid of tipping, but tipping here is only a problem when a former policy maker says, "tip because the policy supports it." I don't agree that policy should be reliant on goodwill but rather policy should support outcomes of goodwill.

That's the only part I find missing, especially considering the conclusion which doesn't strongly suggest policy around labor and wages as a cause (or even a solution).

These are very valuable points from the article and good observations about the condition that a HCoL area (really, any area) is subjected to. Thank you for that.

One area that is problematic is not the custom of tipping, but the policy around tip-based wage earners. Sure, people will tip. Is the concern that the practice makes untraceable tax revenue? We could do away with the policy practice of reduced minimum wage floors for tip-based jobs. It wouldn't introduce a barrier for the practice of tipping, but it also wouldn't tacitly condone tipping through policy, either.

Now, can off-books money change hands (undeclared, untaxed income)? Sure, but honestly someone can hand me cash right now and it wouldn't be trackable either. So from that, I don't believe that we can or should stop tipping, actually (I don't see the problem with it).

My problem is: I don't think that policy reliant on goodwill (suppressing minimum wage floors and hoping tips arrive) is a good strategy. I've had those jobs and I know that pain. It's * almost * like the author is saying that demand will meet the supply shortage in labor right now, but there's this ghost tip component of the equation that troubles me. Just do away with reduced minimum wage floors for "tip based" jobs. Then we don't have to send this message any way other than, "it's nice to tip for nice service."

Agree that the titles may distort the perception (you make an excellent point), but I was concerned about the conclusion of the article. Thank you for bringing that to light.

I also respect your reading of the article as a generalization of this predicament. This is also very helpful to reframe the article. But personally, I'm not so sure of that entirely. And that's because he's outlining tip practices, a voluntary operation, while offering no real conclusion beyond his observations (which I agree are universal) besides "please tip more." I would have also liked (unfairly expected?) someone who said "I have pretty much been in politics my whole adult life" to filter through that lens - policy enablement of the situation.

From the end of the article:

"As for customers… You want to see Spider Man? You desperately want to bring your kids to Encanto or Sing 2? And you want your popcorn, food, and drinks? Cool. But if you don’t tip or act like an asshole, taking your personal anger and frustrations on workers who don’t deserve it, workers will not be there to serve you.

"Good old Adam Smith and his invisible hand of supply and demand works both ways, and the reason why you won’t get what you want will be staring right back in the mirror."

I agree with the author: don't be an a$$hol3 is a good life principle. I actually agree people should tip, too, for good service. What I don't agree with is that, as a legislator, you should craft policy and policy enforcement around the concept of goodwill. Goodwill is a societal outcome of policy, not a requirement of policy. Especially when wellbeing through wage earning is at stake.

Also, supply and demand does work both ways, as the author says. Will policy be able to keep up? Meaning, if demand for workers increases, we should see adjustments in wages. Yet the "rely on tipping, take a lower wage" policy remains with know conditions of the system (that people might not tip).

Yes! And how policy can have unintended consequence is HUGE. Why doesn't he really even mention that? It's upsetting that among the many observations that "people, tip more" ends up being the final thought and not "we created a system that affords all of this behavior, " not one that works with known conditions.

Sure, I personally think people should be more generous, but they aren't obliged to be generous, I don't really fault them for not being more generous, and if lack of generosity is a condition of the system, he doesn't really have a good argument for saying "we crafted a system knowing people aren't generous, please be more generous so our system works."

Too true! Yes he's now in the workforce, and it's such a shame that he NOW sees how the system works AFTER dictating/enforcing policy about it for an entire state.

And there's an implication at the end of the article: tip more, customers. Policy is fine, it didn't cause this problem, customer behavior did.

Perhaps he needs more confirmation through that experience.