Is 18% Tip Presumptuous?

On a seemingly off topic matter, but proving the point I do things based on principles, I have refused to sign an organ donor card. Im all in favor of organ donation and would like to do it, but I refuse for as long as the government doesnt allow me the right to sell my organs. The day the law changes, I will sign my card to DONATE them.

My point being, dont try to read into my actions what you think they are. You will be wrong.

I've spent 5 minutes trying to figure this out, but my head just exploded. Sadly, Rob will not be able to donate his to me.

On a seemingly off topic matter, but proving the point I do things based on principles, I have refused to sign an organ donor card. Im all in favor of organ donation and would like to do it, but I refuse for as long as the government doesnt allow me the right to sell my organs. The day the law changes, I will sign my card to DONATE them.

My point being, dont try to read into my actions what you think they are. You will be wrong.

I've spent 5 minutes trying to figure this out, but my head just exploded. Sadly, Rob will not be able to donate his to me.

Well, Its OT so I wont answer here.

Here's my point of view on this one:

I agree with Rod in that (in general) as long as a server worries about taking care of their table, their tip will come, and will most likely be 20%. Having said that, we do have printed on our menu that a gratuity will be added for SPLIT checks on parties of 7 or more, and here's why... In a restaurant the size of ours (with only 10 tables inside) we divide the tables according to head count. So, when one server gets a 10 top, it could be a long while until they get another table....they would have to wait until everyone else is "up" to 10 before they'd be seated again. If they get "stiffed" on that table, it could make a HUGE difference in their total at the end of the shift. Believe it or not, it does happen....not often...but enough for us to implement this "rule".

I do have to say, though, that servers DO make good---no--- great money. As a matter of fact, a couple of my servers make more in a week than my salary. But, they work a lot of shifts, and they work hard and they've learned our customers well enough to know what they want, and go above and beyond to keep them happy. Their tips show. When you have a "regular" or "somewhat regular" and you can remember their favorite wine or how they like their salad, or whatever, they'll show you their appreciation in often a more-than-twenty-percent thank you.

On a seemingly off topic matter, but proving the point I do things based on principles, I have refused to sign an organ donor card. Im all in favor of organ donation and would like to do it, but I refuse for as long as the government doesnt allow me the right to sell my organs. The day the law changes, I will sign my card to DONATE them.

So you want to donate your organs, but won't because you can't sell them, but you don't want to sell them. Therefore one or more people will die because they didn't get an organ that you wanted to donate but didn't.

That is the dopiest so-called logic I have ever heard of. Mr Spock might even break out laughing at that logic.

On a seemingly off topic matter, but proving the point I do things based on principles, I have refused to sign an organ donor card. Im all in favor of organ donation and would like to do it, but I refuse for as long as the government doesnt allow me the right to sell my organs. The day the law changes, I will sign my card to DONATE them.

So you want to donate your organs, but won't because you can't sell them, but you don't want to sell them. Therefore one or more people will die because they didn't get an organ that you wanted to donate but didn't.

That is the dopiest so-called logic I have ever heard of. Mr Spock might even break out laughing at that logic.

I want the "right" to sell them. I am protesting the government claims to control my organs. If they wont give me complete control to do as I wish, I will keep what control I can. My organs are on strike. If enough people join me (or support the concept), the law will change.

I dont see any logical flaw at all in that. There are better ways to change laws, but I do those to. This is just a bit of added pressure.

The interesting thing is that unlike most strikes, the cost isnt to me. In a normal strike, the worker loses pay while he is striking. In this case, some other person is paying the price. Hopefully they will realize it and push to end the strike (and pushing on me wont do it, Im not changing my position).

edit: Sigh, its OT and I wasnt going to go there. Oh well.

The interesting thing is that unlike most strikes, the cost isnt to me. In a normal strike, the worker loses pay while he is striking. In this case, some other person is paying the price.

I'm a bit lost as to why the fact that "some other person is paying the price" makes this "interesting." I would have picked a less neutral adjective. Since you cannot profit from the sale of your organs after death, is it the value of your estate that you're fighting for?

The interesting thing is that unlike most strikes, the cost isnt to me. In a normal strike, the worker loses pay while he is striking. In this case, some other person is paying the price.

I'm a bit lost as to why the fact that "some other person is paying the price" makes this "interesting." I would have picked a less neutral adjective. Since you cannot profit from the sale of your organs after death, is it the value of your estate that you're fighting for?

I chose "interesting" because I find it interesting. Im not sure what less neutral adjective fits better.

Im going to donate my organs if the law changes, Im fighting for the value of other people's estate, or, for them to be able to enter into a contract in advance in which they get cash now in return for their organs after their death. Sort of a prepaid sale. Its a matter of principle. Which was why it even got brought up, to show that I make decisions that other people find odd or assume are being made for other reasons (for example, I have been accused of being greedy for wanting the right to sell my organs) when theses decisions are actually being made based on principle. Not necessarily a normal one, but there is one there. I was POed that I was being accused of using the manditory gratuity as an excuse to not tip more. It isnt an excuse, I think gratuities should be completely at the discretion of the customer.

The interesting thing is that unlike most strikes, the cost isnt to me. In a normal strike, the worker loses pay while he is striking. In this case, some other person is paying the price.

I'm a bit lost as to why the fact that "some other person is paying the price" makes this "interesting." I would have picked a less neutral adjective. Since you cannot profit from the sale of your organs after death, is it the value of your estate that you're fighting for?

I chose "interesting" because I find it interesting. Im not sure what less neutral adjective fits better.

Im going to donate my organs if the law changes, Im fighting for the value of other people's estate, or, for them to be able to enter into a contract in advance in which they get cash now in return for their organs after their death. Sort of a prepaid sale. Its a matter of principle. Which was why it even got brought up, to show that I make decisions that other people find odd or assume are being made for other reasons (for example, I have been accused of being greedy for wanting the right to sell my organs) when theses decisions are actually being made based on principle. Not necessarily a normal one, but there is one there. I was POed that I was being accused of using the manditory gratuity as an excuse to not tip more. It isnt an excuse, I think gratuities should be completely at the discretion of the customer.

Have you looked into why the clear consensus in the field of medical ethics is that organs should not be sold?

Have you looked into why the clear consensus in the field of medical ethics is that organs should not be sold?

I have read quite a bit on it and there isnt a clear consensus. There are many, many doctors and ethicists and others calling for a change. A minority, but they exist.

That said, I dont care what ethicists think.

Edit:

Interesting question for the ethicists - why are doctors allowed to charge for the service of performing an organ transplant operation?

I have read quite a bit on it . . . That said, I dont care what ethicists think.

Why would you read if you don't care what they think? If you don't care what they think, why would you report that a growing minority support your position?

I have read quite a bit on it . . . That said, I dont care what ethicists think.

Why would you read if you don't care what they think? If you don't care what they think, why would you report that a growing minority support your position?

I have read quite a bit because I want to know what is going on. I reported it because you might care. I dont care what the ethicists think because I think most ethicists wouldnt know ethics if it bit them in the ... well, you see where this is going.