A lot of discussion on the board over the actions of the Applebees waitress fired for posting a credit card receipt to Reddit signed by a pastor who took umbrage at the mandatory 18% gratuity imposed by the restaurant for parties of 8 or more.
The pastor felt that she was under no obligation to pay the 18% gratuity, as it was more than the 10% she "tithed" to her god.
The resulting firestorm found the pastor suffering much public humiliation for her action, and she she was much aggrieved. Her vexation was expressed in a demand that the restaurant fire the waitress who posted the receipt, a demand that was granted.
Much discussion ensued with folks mostly taking the waitresses' side, and castigating the pastor for her "thrifty" attitude.
So, in the interest of open educational discourse, I offer my humble evaluation of the ethical issues in question.
Let me start with the pastor (OK, I am a chicken, and will pick the soft target first, since I know that when I discuss the waitress I will get some "frank" and "direct" rebuttal.
1) The social contract which exists in this country concerning the "tipping" of service workers, especially food service workers, evokes debate about its fairness on occasion, but the contract's terms are clearly established none the less. You tip the person who serves your food. The economic model of the industry is designed so that this is a critical portion of the server's income. Stiffing the server without cause (and even when there is cause, you are obliged to cite it when withholding a tip) is a violation of this social contract.
If you do NOT wish to enter into this contract, then you should limit your dining to fast food establishments where tipping is NOT required, or eat at home.
ANYTHING else is simply unethical. You do NOT cheat people out of their wages, and like it or not, by dining in a sit down restaurant, you are responsible for a portion of your server's wages equal to 15% of your bill (the whole bill, not the balance of the bill after any coupons. Clipping coupons is okay, clipping your server is NOT). Arguments about paying extra for service are NOT germane to this obligation. Hash that one out with society in general and leave the wait staff out of it until you do.
Let me re-iterate this point: Stiffing your server means YOU are cheating a person out of their wages. You are doing this, not the restaurant (ancillary arguments about obligatory tip sharing requirements imposed by the restaurant on its staff are also beside the point, though they are certainly fodder for another ethical discussion).
As to mandatory 18% surcharges for parties of "x" size, the issue of fairness is not up for debate since you can choose to patronize establishments which do not impose this requirement.
Your self-imposed charitable obligations, or penurious status are NOT grounds for discounting or failing to pay a tip. The fact that you worship a god who has set 10% as their tipping obligation does not mean you can assign this as a limit when you are required to compensate service workers.
And, if you are too poor to tip the accepted amount, you are too poor to patronize restaurants that oblige you to tip.
Summary: A MINIMUM 15% tip is obligatory for competent service. Exceptional service warrants more at your discretion. It is OK to tip less, or nothing at all, for poor to awful service if, AND ONLY IF, you make known to the server (or manager) your displeasure. This may be done in writing as you are not required to verbally confront someone over this issue.
2) As a pastor of a Christian denomination, one is supposedly well versed in the philosophy (ethical and charitable) of one Jesus Christ (aka, "Jesus H. Christ", "Jesus Christ on a Crutch", "Jeebus"), the individual from who the religion/philosophy derives its name. I could cite innumerable passages from the Christian instruction manual about how you are supposed to behave toward your fellow human being, but I will restrict myself to a single paraphrase:
"Render unto your server her freakin' tip, and unto God what is God's!"
3) Having, by your own admission, "brought embarrassment to my church and ministry", because of a "lapse in my character and judgment", it would be remiss of me to fail to point out other scriptural strictures about "turning the other cheek", and "not casting the first stone" (or the second in this case).
The fact that a person acted improperly in making the credit card receipt public is, again, not germane to YOUR ethical behavior. Despite what you may wish to quote about "an eye for eye, a tooth for a tooth" you are remiss in this citation when you fail to quote the entire remark:
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
I think your boss is being quite clear on the matter at hand.
Now, to our waitress.
1) Posting the receipt so that people could read the signature was wrong, as was posting enough of the receipt that the restaurant was identifiable was wrong (it was also dumb, but we are discussing ethics not common sense).
The pastor didn't stiff your co-worker, she TRIED to stiff your co-worker. The gratuity WAS automatically applied and charged per the restaurant's rules, attempted deletions not withstanding. While it would have been appropriate to discuss this incident "anecdotally", actually posting the receipt crossed the ethical line. Yes, she wrote her snippy little note with the intent that it be read, but not with the intent that it be read by the general public. Credit card slips are NOT matters of public record absent a warrant or court order. Therefore, the pastor had EVERY expectation of privacy, no matter how annoying, cheap, or unethical her conduct. "Tit for tat" justifications do NOT permit violating her expectation of privacy.
Yes, what she did WAS wrong in her intent, however, and this bears repeating, your co-worker was NOT, in fact, cheated of her wages under the tipping covenant since the 18% WAS CHARGED to her credit card. Your "intent" doesn't really matter much, since your actions were simply wrong on all levels.
“When I posted this, I didn’t represent Applebee’s in a bad light,” she continues. “In fact, I didn’t represent them at all. I did my best to protect the identity of all parties involved. I didn’t break any specific guidelines in the company handbook — I checked.
A) But you DID represent Applebees in a bad light. You humiliated one of their customers (arguments about soulless corporations, again, are not germane to ethical considerations. We judge Applebees based on their actions, the server based on her actions and the pastor, etc.) and people in the business of serving the public get rather techy when you alienate the clientele.
B) Your "best" wasn't enough since you should not have posted the picture under any circumstances.
C) Claiming you didn't break any specific guideline in the company handbook is a very lame excuse. When you start making legalistic arguments of this type, you have given up the moral high ground. If I ran a restaurant I certainly would not think I would have to write a specific rule to cover this situation. You should be a good and ethical person simply because that is the right thing to do, not because the rules specifically require it.
Also, I am quite sure there is something in the employee handbook about treating customers with respect. Publicly humiliating them would certainly violate that rule.
“But because this person got embarrassed that their selfishness was made public, Applebee’s has made it clear that they would rather lose a dedicated employee than lose an angry customer. That’s a policy I can’t understand.”
This person did not "get embarrassed" by themselves, they were embarrassed because their action was made public by you in a manner that was deeply humiliating. I am pretty sure that task was NOT in your job description. I also can understand why Applebees would be willing to sacrifice a "dedicated" employee who made it her job to anger a customer.
In a follow up interview, the pastor claimed that while she crossed off the tip, she left $6 cash on top of the 18% she was automatically charged. To be honest, I am not inclined to take her word on this. However, this interview sparked this response from our waitress:
“Whether or not she left a tip, the note was still offensive. It wasn’t my table, it wasn’t my tip. I’m not sure who ended up with what money at the end of the night. But you can’t really argue with what’s plainly written, and what was written was insulting. Insulted or not, I’ve lost my job over this mess, and that’s what I’m concerned with now. The six dollars one way or another wouldn’t really affect that situation.”
Wasn't your table, wasn't your tip, so, shall we move to the logical conclusion?
Wasn't your business.
The insult was NOT directed at you, and even if it were, your actions would still be wrong.
Also, and I cannot stress this enough because everybody keeps missing it, THE 18% GRATUITY WAS PAID!! Whether voluntarily or involuntarily is beside the point.
I am VERY sorry you lost your job. I am even more sorry that you don't see your responsibility in that loss.
You decided to make an issue of $6 and an woman's inconsiderate and snarky action, by being snarky and inconsiderate yourself. And in so doing, lost your job.
To be honest, the customer wasn't worth it, but you set the stakes, not the customer.
Oh, and finally the last player in our drama: Applebees
You are ethically obligated to pay your employees a living wage. Had you done so, this situation would not have happened.