Could this become a legal replacement for waiters?

[Narmer]

http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/12/toshibas-wheelie-robot-carries-your-dinner-doesn-t-do-burnouts/

It's a robot. Perhaps a more advanced version could take your orders. No need to tip. This could lower some of the costs at restaurants.

 

[HannibalX]

I bet it raises costs in the long run.

 

[Epic Fail]

You'll need to tip the programmers.

 

[Narmer]

I bet it raises costs in the long run.

How so?

 

[coldmeat]

I would definitely eat at a restaurant that had those.

 

[HannibalX]

How so?

Your average US waiter is getting $2-$3/hour base pay from their employer. The employer is still responsible for that person being paid the minimum hourly wage requirement set by the Federal government though. Luckily for the employer the customer usually covers the difference with tips. Most waiters make more than the minimum wage for the amount of hours they work by the end of their shift but if for some reason they don't the employer has to cover the difference to stay legal.

So, as it stands with a living person waiting on people the employer's salary costs typically are very low with the customer paying the brunt of it. If the employer switches to robots with no tipping the entire cost of the unit and it's upkeep will fall on the employer which I am guessing will cost more per year than it would to pay someone for a year. So now the employer's costs have increased but it won't be at the cost of profit so the additional cost will be built into the price of the food and passed on to the customer.

 

[Kalmah]

Also, most people can't even operate a computer. Giving an order to a computer in a logical sense is beyond most people. Now.. if you put your order on a punch card and fed that into it... that would just be stupid though.

 

[techs]

And it won't spit in your food.

 

[Ruptga]

Your average US waiter is getting $2-$3/hour base pay from their employer. The employer is still responsible for that person being paid the minimum hourly wage requirement set by the Federal government though. Luckily for the employer the customer usually covers the difference with tips. Most waiters make more than the minimum wage for the amount of hours they work by the end of their shift but if for some reason they don't the employer has to cover the difference to stay legal.

So, as it stands with a living person waiting on people the employer's salary costs typically are very low with the customer paying the brunt of it. If the employer switches to robots with no tipping the entire cost of the unit and it's upkeep will fall on the employer which I am guessing will cost more per year than it would to pay someone for a year. So now the employer's costs have increased but it won't be at the cost of profit so the additional cost will be built into the price of the food and passed on to the customer.

Yup, that's the difference between variable and fixed cost. Moving a variable cost to a fixed cost (which robots would) makes it so you have to sell more to break even, but once you pass break-even your profits increase more rapidly.

So, whether or not it would be profitable depends entirely upon how much it costs in upkeep and how much use you'll get out of it.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

What does the law have to do with it?

 

[Jeff7]

I bet it raises costs in the long run.

Depends how cheap it is on maintenance, and how good the restaurant is about forcing customers to pay when they damage it by pouring liquid on it, or otherwise abusing it.

But it doesn't need breaks, it should never forget an order, doesn't need health insurance, or any of the other costs associated with keeping people employed.

 

[Narmer]

Your average US waiter is getting $2-$3/hour base pay from their employer. The employer is still responsible for that person being paid the minimum hourly wage requirement set by the Federal government though. Luckily for the employer the customer usually covers the difference with tips. Most waiters make more than the minimum wage for the amount of hours they work by the end of their shift but if for some reason they don't the employer has to cover the difference to stay legal.

So, as it stands with a living person waiting on people the employer's salary costs typically are very low with the customer paying the brunt of it. If the employer switches to robots with no tipping the entire cost of the unit and it's upkeep will fall on the employer which I am guessing will cost more per year than it would to pay someone for a year. So now the employer's costs have increased but it won't be at the cost of profit so the additional cost will be built into the price of the food and passed on to the customer.

I doubt that's how it works. I would assume that waiters get paid minimum wage and that is topped up by tips. Getting paid $3/hour is highly illegal because there is no guarantee that they will get a tip. Also, they can easily evade taxes and get the employer in hot water by claiming that they did not get any tip.

 

[HannibalX]

I doubt that's how it works. I would assume that waiters get paid minimum wage and that is topped up by tips. Getting paid $3/hour is highly illegal because there is no guarantee that they will get a tip. Also, they can easily evade taxes and get the employer in hot water by claiming that they did not get any tip.

That is indeed how it works in most restaurants in the US.

Let me see if I can explain it a little more clearly. We won't talk about taxes to keep it simple.

A waiter is paid a base rate of $3/hour by the employer and works for eight hours; this rate varies from employer to employer. The Federal minimum wage is $7.25 hour. The employee has earned $24 from their base rate after eight hours and the employer needs them to receive an additional $34 in tips during the shift to meet the minimum wage requirement for the eight hours of work which is $58. If the waiter receives less than $34 in tips or no tips at all the employer must cover the difference which could be a few dollars up to the full $34 - either way to be legal that waiter must receive the equivalent of $7.25/hour at the end of their shift.

Most of the time however the employer doesn't have to pay anything on top of the base rate because the waiter earns enough in tips, typically more than the minimum wage. I think the average hourly rate after tips in the US for waiters is something like $12/hour.

I hope that clarifies things for you a bit.

 

[Narmer]

That is indeed how it works in most restaurants in the US.

Let me see if I can explain it a little more clearly. We won't talk about taxes to keep it simple.

A waiter is paid a base rate of $3/hour by the employer and works for eight hours; this rate varies from employer to employer. The Federal minimum wage is $7.25 hour. The employee has earned $24 from their base rate after eight hours and the employer needs them to receive an additional $34 in tips during the shift to meet the minimum wage requirement for the eight hours of work which is $58. If the waiter receives less than $34 in tips or no tips at all the employer must cover the difference which could be a few dollars up to the full $34 - either way to be legal that waiter must receive the equivalent of $7.25/hour at the end of their shift.

Most of the time however the employer doesn't have to pay anything on top of the base rate because the waiter earns enough in tips, typically more than the minimum wage. I think the average hourly rate after tips in the US for waiters is something like $12/hour.

I hope that clarifies things for you a bit.

There seems to be a lot of room for deceit and tax evasion. First, isn't the employer obligated to pay some sort of tax depending on the waiter's pay? Also, doesn't this make it too easy for the waiter to exploit the employer and vice-versa? I wish there were waiters on this forum who could backup your story.

 

[theflyingpig]

I hope so. Servers add nothing to the dining experience and should be removed and replaced with an automated solution. Everyone knows this.

 

[HannibalX]

There seems to be a lot of room for deceit and tax evasion. First, isn't the employer obligated to pay some sort of tax depending on the waiter's pay? Also, doesn't this make it too easy for the waiter to exploit the employer and vice-versa? I wish there were waiters on this forum who could backup your story.

There is no way for the employee to earn less than the Federally mandated minimum wage or State mandated minimum wage (if it exceeds the Federal rate) which I explained in two separate posts.

There is a potential for fraud, yes. In any business where cash is used there is the potential for fraud. Waiters are required to account for their tips; one reason for this is tax purposes, the other is so the employer knows what its obligation is outside of the base rate. If a waiter didn't report his tips or under-reported them the employer would get stuck paying more than it is obligated to.

You are welcome to think of this information as a story if you like.

 

[Ramma2]

Advertise there's no wait staff to tip, then increase the cost of food by the average amount of a tip. People will be blind to the slightly higher costs with the appeal of no tipping and the novelty of a robot waiter.

 

[HannibalX]

Advertise there's no wait staff to tip, then increase the cost of food by the average amount of a tip. People will be blind to the slightly higher costs with the appeal of no tipping and the novelty of a robot waiter.

You have described McDonald's. All staff receive a fixed hourly rate (typically minimum wage or slightly higher) and there is no wait staff and no one to tip. You carry your own food to your table, get your own drinks and bus your own table.

 

[herrjimbo]

i highly doubt that soup could ever be served.
unless it was served tightly covered.

 

[Lord Zado]

Even assuming you could give this thing your order, waiters also check to see if you are low on drinks, if you want dessert, the check, if you are having a problem with your meal, etc. I guess you could put a button at each table to signal a real person to come out for complaints or to send the robot out with a drink, the check, a desert menu, etc.

 

[hanoverphist]

There seems to be a lot of room for deceit and tax evasion. First, isn't the employer obligated to pay some sort of tax depending on the waiter's pay? Also, doesn't this make it too easy for the waiter to exploit the employer and vice-versa? I wish there were waiters on this forum who could backup your story.

i was a waiter for a number of years long ago, and what he says is pretty much how it works. if a waiter is costing the employer anything beyond their low pay, you can bet he wont work there long. also, if a waiter isnt making enough tips to kick over minimum wage he is a terrible waiter and shouldnt work there regardless. unless he is working 30 min shifts or something. i was a lucky waiter tho, i waited tables as well as management stuff so i got over minimum and still got to keep my tips. and yes, i claimed them. most of the wait staff claimed just enough to show minimum wage tho, and kept most of the cash tips hidden. and yes, thats illegal.

 

[ViviTheMage]

And it won't spit in your food.

There's still the cooks.