47598
Post by: motyak
Some people just need their moment in the spotlight I guess.
241
Post by: Ahtman
 motyak wrote:Some people just need their moment in the spotlight I guess.
Or free money from strangers as it may be, since the waitress has been accepting 'tips' from sympathetic ears.
39827
Post by: scarletsquig
Ugh. I hate hoaxes like this. Just blatant fraud exploiting the genuine goodwill of really nice people who don't have a suspicious bone in their body.
As soon as the "victim" starts accepting "donations" and saying "part of" the donations will go to charity I instantly get suspicious.
I've seen similar things before on various internet communities where there was some anti-rape campaigner who started attacking anything and anyone that made a joke about the subject, whipped up a huge storm of moral outrage.. and then started accepting money.
Quite a lot of money. And then started selling t-shirts with slogans on for very large sums with 10% going to womens charities (and 20% going to make and deliver the t-shirt, and the other 70% being pocketed).
And I've lost count of the number of "My little girl has cancer please help" > "I'm actually funding a sports car and a cruise" hoaxes that have cropped up over the years.
Anyone who does anything like this deserves to go to Special Hell.
Can't believe the restaurant is supporting her story instead of firing her.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Why did this get coverage in the first place? People are rude to each other all the time.
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
Why is she not getting fired?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Perhaps she is the most popular and successful waitress in the place, and brings in 50% more customers since the original story broke.
The report says the restaurant is doing an internal investigation. Once that is finished, they may or may not decide that she should be fired.
9217
Post by: KingCracker
 Seaward wrote:Why did this get coverage in the first place? People are rude to each other all the time.
That's what I thought too. Personally I've no problem with gay folk at all, but I don't get all bent out of shape when ignorant people say they don't agree with it. Hell, even if that family really did write that, it was about as nice as an anti gay person could have wrote it 
12313
Post by: Ouze
It's still not 100% clear it was a hoax. There are two possibilities:
It's possible that the couple in question 'shopped both the receipt and the credit card statement (the reporter didn't look at the statement online). Occam's Razor says this is unlikely. If it is the case I imagine the restaurant will find the original charge that was run.
OR
The waitress got pissed they called her "Dan", perceived it to be a putdown instead of an honest mistake (maybe it was, who knows, doesn't really matter for this argument), ran the receipt, tossed it, and then printed a duplicate receipt she wrote out herself and basked in outrage. She done goofed with running it for the full amount, if this was the case.
I'm leaning towards the latter because it's a lot simpler of an explanation, and because when the reporter followed up with her, her posture, tone, and face felt very similar to when I would catch my nephew in a super obvious lie when I used to babysit them. "Who broke this window"? "I.... don't know. That sucks. Wasn't me."
But technically either scenario is still possible.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Seaward wrote:Why did this get coverage in the first place? People are rude to each other all the time.
She allegedly lost an $18 tip. That's probably two hours pay.
33125
Post by: Seaward
 Kilkrazy wrote:She allegedly lost an $18 tip. That's probably two hours pay.
Servers don't get tipped sometimes. It happens. It doesn't make the news.
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
I think your right about her posturing in the interview, just seems like she's lying. At any rate, regardless of whether or not the family had done this she acted unprofessionally. You don't air your dirty laundry infront of other potential customers. You shrug it off and get on. When somebody is rude to myself or a co-worker you just shrug it off, or goe in the back and chill for a minute. People like that are the 1% of all trade, it's better just to ignore them.
Kilkrazy wrote: Seaward wrote:Why did this get coverage in the first place? People are rude to each other all the time.
She allegedly lost an $18 tip. That's probably two hours pay.
A tip isn't pay. It's not like they took two hours wages from her. Regardless of what was said or done, people aren't obliged to tip (unless it's a policy of the premises).
37231
Post by: d-usa
Seaward wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:She allegedly lost an $18 tip. That's probably two hours pay.
Servers don't get tipped sometimes. It happens. It doesn't make the news.
But when you combine "gak happens" with "issue people care about" and "human interest" with a dash of "people that are different" you get a national news story.
So "no tip" (gak happens) with "issue people care about" (homophobia) and "human interest" (poor waitress, classic underdog) and a dash of "people that are different" (picking on those poor gays) = national news story.
Of course that equation gets amplified if it is a slow news day and/or an issue that is already trending on social media and the news want a slice of that.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Even looking at the two receipts side by side the amounts written look as though they were done by two different people.
Look at the way the number 5 is written especially. On the Merchant copy the horizontal stroke at the top of the 5 is straight, while on the Customer copy the horizontal stroke is curved upwards at the end. Even the curve is different. The curve on the Merchant copy is much rounder, whereas the curve on the customer copy is much different.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Someone took the spare receipt and faked it...
121
Post by: Relapse
The other thing that really sucks about this if it's true, and the evidence is beginning to make seem that way, is that this will fuel the fire of bigots saying gay people like to play the victim card to move thier agenda.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
Something's fishy, and I don't think it's the daily special.
52054
Post by: MrMoustaffa
 Medium of Death wrote:I think your right about her posturing in the interview, just seems like she's lying. At any rate, regardless of whether or not the family had done this she acted unprofessionally. You don't air your dirty laundry infront of other potential customers. You shrug it off and get on. When somebody is rude to myself or a co-worker you just shrug it off, or goe in the back and chill for a minute. People like that are the 1% of all trade, it's better just to ignore them.
Kilkrazy wrote: Seaward wrote:Why did this get coverage in the first place? People are rude to each other all the time.
She allegedly lost an $18 tip. That's probably two hours pay.
A tip isn't pay. It's not like they took two hours wages from her. Regardless of what was said or done, people aren't obliged to tip (unless it's a policy of the premises).
Do British restaurants work differently? Because here, yes, a tip makes up most of a waitress's pay, and yes, that probably was 2 hours pay (assuming she was telling the truth)
I think the legal minimum wage for them is $2.50 an hour or something like that, specifically because they're assumed to make the rest in tips. I've had friends who quit working at restaurants because during slow hours they might make only 20 bucks for a days worth of work.
34242
Post by: -Loki-
 MrMoustaffa wrote: Medium of Death wrote:I think your right about her posturing in the interview, just seems like she's lying. At any rate, regardless of whether or not the family had done this she acted unprofessionally. You don't air your dirty laundry infront of other potential customers. You shrug it off and get on. When somebody is rude to myself or a co-worker you just shrug it off, or goe in the back and chill for a minute. People like that are the 1% of all trade, it's better just to ignore them.
Kilkrazy wrote: Seaward wrote:Why did this get coverage in the first place? People are rude to each other all the time.
She allegedly lost an $18 tip. That's probably two hours pay.
A tip isn't pay. It's not like they took two hours wages from her. Regardless of what was said or done, people aren't obliged to tip (unless it's a policy of the premises).
Do British restaurants work differently? Because here, yes, a tip makes up most of a waitress's pay, and yes, that probably was 2 hours pay (assuming she was telling the truth)
I think the legal minimum wage for them is $2.50 an hour or something like that, specifically because they're assumed to make the rest in tips. I've had friends who quit working at restaurants because during slow hours they might make only 20 bucks for a days worth of work.
I'm assuming he's a bit ignorant and British resturaunts work similarly to Australian - there's a decent minimum wage, and tips aren't really a thing. Usually in Australia there's a tip jar on the counter in smaller cafes where people frop a few dollars maybe, and in larger, more expensive resturaunts tipping the wait staff is a courtesy but not actually expected, because tips don't make up part of their wage, as their wage isn't as horrible as it is in the US.
23
Post by: djones520
Doubtful an $18 tip was worth 2 hours of pay. It was probably a single tip of roughly equivalent value as she got from the 3-4 other tables she was working at the same time.
70365
Post by: Gentleman_Jellyfish
A manager and the restaurant owner insisted they had the original ticket for the $93.55 charge, but would not produce the receipt for NBC 4 New York and could not explain why the family's credit card was charged for more.
That pretty much seals the hoax deal for me.
Edit: And as far as tipping goes, my opinion is I will still tip out of sheer social obligation but I see no reason why restaurants can't just go to a normal pay system with service built in to the prices. Is this really a better system somehow?
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
Ohoho, I love it when stories of support and solidarity like these turn out to be based on a hoax.
5470
Post by: sebster
Seaward wrote:Why did this get coverage in the first place? People are rude to each other all the time.
I can't help but think that when a single incident of someone being rude to GLBT person becomes nation news, fraudulent or not, things must have come a long way.
8907
Post by: cadbren
"Good evening, my name is Lisa and I'll be your server tonight, I'm a lesbian by the way."
I mean, how else would you know right?
I think she heard about the black "server" who claimed to get a receipt calling her a n------ and no tip, who later got $10,000 worth of donations from people who heard of her experience.
That story also seemed like a hoax and I suspect we'll see more as people line up to cash in.
5470
Post by: sebster
The restaurant is wise to do a proper investigation before making any decision. People just accepting a story and acting on it is how all those donations got sent to a lady who probably doesn't deserve them. Automatically Appended Next Post: Kilkrazy wrote:She allegedly lost an $18 tip. That's probably two hours pay.
I'm pretty sure $18 is a long way short of what's normally considered large enough to warrant national media attention.
"Woman over-charged $19 on groceries. Returns to store to get refund."
"Man is sure there was another $20 in his wallet. Spends all morning looking for it unsuccessfully."
"Waitress misses out on tip worth $18."
7942
Post by: nkelsch
 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:A manager and the restaurant owner insisted they had the original ticket for the $93.55 charge, but would not produce the receipt for NBC 4 New York and could not explain why the family's credit card was charged for more.
That pretty much seals the hoax deal for me.
Edit: And as far as tipping goes, my opinion is I will still tip out of sheer social obligation but I see no reason why restaurants can't just go to a normal pay system with service built in to the prices. Is this really a better system somehow?
Every state has different laws in regards to tip and wages... So a restaurant cannot simply decide to buck the system as it would make their restaurant grossly uncompetitive if everyone else was paying 2.75 whichever as the states minimum wage with tips and some restaurant decided to pay full minimum wage and allow people to keep the tips.
Tips are wages and you can't hold it against the workers. If you don't know the local law where you eat and can't afford to tip, do not go out to eat. Period. If you don't like it, take it up with your elected officials.
When a wait staff says "my name is" don't question it. Don't make fun of it, don't joke about it, don't say " are you foreign" or something. People are sometimes downright rude like that which is why people often wait tables order "fake, socially acceptable names" because they get so annoyed by insults, jokes and other comments. She probably was pissed they basically made fun of her name being Dan, or going by Dan. She probably made a hoax, which was unacceptable, but she also probably gets a fair share of annoying or rude comments of people who balk at her name too. The video of the family who preaches "tolerance" screams to me of a cornered bigot. They seem very guarded with their words and seemed defensive about not at all possibly accepting the comments they had made May have been taken as an insult. Tolerance is not acceptance. The "I don't care what people do" is not "I accept people of all types." The faceless people in the video and the need to comment about the name don't strike me as people doing anything but begrudging tolerance.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but if you made jokes or comments about a servers name due to gender, an apology would have gone a long way. But the hoax is unacceptable and Dan should be fired.
5470
Post by: sebster
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:Edit: And as far as tipping goes, my opinion is I will still tip out of sheer social obligation but I see no reason why restaurants can't just go to a normal pay system with service built in to the prices. Is this really a better system somehow?
I will say that the worst service I got in the US was still better than the best service I get here in Australia. Tipping certainly works to encourage excellent service.
And that isn't something inherent in US culture or anything, because outside of services where you tip, US customer service was the same or perhaps a little worse.
I mean, the system is still weird, but it's certainly got one thing going for it. Automatically Appended Next Post: nkelsch wrote:Every state has different laws in regards to tip and wages... So a restaurant cannot simply decide to buck the system as it would make their restaurant grossly uncompetitive if everyone else was paying 2.75 whichever as the states minimum wage with tips and some restaurant decided to pay full minimum wage and allow people to keep the tips.
A restaurant could quite easily just fix the gratuity and then capture that fixed amount in the price paid for the meal. So instead of listing a meal as $10, it is listed as "$11.50 with tip included automatically".
8907
Post by: cadbren
In regards the comments made about so much attention made over $18, for some people it's the principle of the thing, especially if egos and entitlement beliefs are involved.
Earlier this year a man was arrested for abusing the 911 system when he called police after finding out his fast food order wasn't complete.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
nkelsch wrote: Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:A manager and the restaurant owner insisted they had the original ticket for the $93.55 charge, but would not produce the receipt for NBC 4 New York and could not explain why the family's credit card was charged for more.
That pretty much seals the hoax deal for me.
Edit: And as far as tipping goes, my opinion is I will still tip out of sheer social obligation but I see no reason why restaurants can't just go to a normal pay system with service built in to the prices. Is this really a better system somehow?
Every state has different laws in regards to tip and wages... So a restaurant cannot simply decide to buck the system as it would make their restaurant grossly uncompetitive if everyone else was paying 2.75 whichever as the states minimum wage with tips and some restaurant decided to pay full minimum wage and allow people to keep the tips.
Tips are wages and you can't hold it against the workers. If you don't know the local law where you eat and can't afford to tip, do not go out to eat. Period. If you don't like it, take it up with your elected officials.
When a wait staff says "my name is" don't question it. Don't make fun of it, don't joke about it, don't say " are you foreign" or something. People are sometimes downright rude like that which is why people often wait tables order "fake, socially acceptable names" because they get so annoyed by insults, jokes and other comments. She probably was pissed they basically made fun of her name being Dan, or going by Dan. She probably made a hoax, which was unacceptable, but she also probably gets a fair share of annoying or rude comments of people who balk at her name too. The video of the family who preaches "tolerance" screams to me of a cornered bigot. They seem very guarded with their words and seemed defensive about not at all possibly accepting the comments they had made May have been taken as an insult. Tolerance is not acceptance. The "I don't care what people do" is not "I accept people of all types." The faceless people in the video and the need to comment about the name don't strike me as people doing anything but begrudging tolerance.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but if you made jokes or comments about a servers name due to gender, an apology would have gone a long way. But the hoax is unacceptable and Dan should be fired.
Or. You know, maybe since her name is Dayna they simply misheard and thought it was Dan. It's not like she's overly feminine looking; she could easily be confused for an enfeminiate male.
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
It's because someone said something so hateful as "I don't agree with you".
7942
Post by: nkelsch
 cincydooley wrote:nkelsch wrote: Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:A manager and the restaurant owner insisted they had the original ticket for the $93.55 charge, but would not produce the receipt for NBC 4 New York and could not explain why the family's credit card was charged for more.
That pretty much seals the hoax deal for me.
Edit: And as far as tipping goes, my opinion is I will still tip out of sheer social obligation but I see no reason why restaurants can't just go to a normal pay system with service built in to the prices. Is this really a better system somehow?
Every state has different laws in regards to tip and wages... So a restaurant cannot simply decide to buck the system as it would make their restaurant grossly uncompetitive if everyone else was paying 2.75 whichever as the states minimum wage with tips and some restaurant decided to pay full minimum wage and allow people to keep the tips.
Tips are wages and you can't hold it against the workers. If you don't know the local law where you eat and can't afford to tip, do not go out to eat. Period. If you don't like it, take it up with your elected officials.
When a wait staff says "my name is" don't question it. Don't make fun of it, don't joke about it, don't say " are you foreign" or something. People are sometimes downright rude like that which is why people often wait tables order "fake, socially acceptable names" because they get so annoyed by insults, jokes and other comments. She probably was pissed they basically made fun of her name being Dan, or going by Dan. She probably made a hoax, which was unacceptable, but she also probably gets a fair share of annoying or rude comments of people who balk at her name too. The video of the family who preaches "tolerance" screams to me of a cornered bigot. They seem very guarded with their words and seemed defensive about not at all possibly accepting the comments they had made May have been taken as an insult. Tolerance is not acceptance. The "I don't care what people do" is not "I accept people of all types." The faceless people in the video and the need to comment about the name don't strike me as people doing anything but begrudging tolerance.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but if you made jokes or comments about a servers name due to gender, an apology would have gone a long way. But the hoax is unacceptable and Dan should be fired.
Or. You know, maybe since her name is Dayna they simply misheard and thought it was Dan. It's not like she's overly feminine looking; she could easily be confused for an enfeminiate male.
the news report I watched said she went by "Dan" which is somewhat common for women who wish to use the masculine version of their name. It sounded like they said "your server is Dan" and when a female showed up saying her name was Dan, the couple made a joke about how they assumed it was a mistake because they assumed a woman can't go by Dan. " oh, you are not our waiter, we were told it was Dan and you are a woman." "Sorry, I am Dan."
I dunno... Maybe it is more common in my area so I am never "surprised" or feel the need to comment of people's perceived genders or names. I have seen when people have done it in both terms of gender as well as "you have a foreigner name!" Type comments and it doesn't make people feel good.
But being angry at insensitive customers who may or may not have made a joke at your expense doesn't justify fraud. (Which is what this basically is)
5470
Post by: sebster
Except the statement was 'I don't agree with your lifestyle'... which is totally fething different.
It's incredible, this inability of people to understand this isn't just an abstract political position, but actual people's lives.
33125
Post by: Seaward
 sebster wrote:I can't help but think that when a single incident of someone being rude to GLBT person becomes nation news, fraudulent or not, things must have come a long way.
Yeah, I don't think this is an example of a good thing. I think it's indicative of a hysterical, sensation-starved media.
5534
Post by: dogma
cincydooley wrote:
Or. You know, maybe since her name is Dayna they simply misheard and thought it was Dan. It's not like she's overly feminine looking; she could easily be confused for an enfeminiate male.
I could understand confusing "Dayna" with "Dane", but not with "Dan".
 Ouze wrote:
This whole thing sounded pretty fishy from the beginning, I thought.
So...many...lulz.
At any rate, while I see how this report connects the 2 receipts, I would like to see each one in total (absent personal information) before coming to a conclusion. I mean, in the video an unidentified man claims that he can see his name beneath the pixelization applied to the image by whoever produced the image that he was looking at, but I can't identify any characters, let alone a name, beneath the pixelization of the image image provided in the video.
30287
Post by: Bromsy
Generally speaking, I believe the side that produces the most data supporting their side.
5470
Post by: sebster
Seaward wrote:Yeah, I don't think this is an example of a good thing. I think it's indicative of a hysterical, sensation-starved media.
Yep. I think the biggest casualty of the internet age is a sense of scale. There's no physical limit on how many stories can be published, and no news editors to assess what stories are important enough to get printed. Everything that half looks like news gets printed.
And while people could, in theory, perform the same job as the sub-editor and ask 'is this a big enough deal to worry about' it seems not many people do.
21940
Post by: nels1031
Relapse wrote:The other thing that really sucks about this if it's true, and the evidence is beginning to make seem that way, is that this will fuel the fire of bigots saying gay people like to play the victim card to move thier agenda.
It will be a long time until an unhinged person tops the Nebraska woman that mutilated herself with anti-gay slurs and claimed "hate crime".
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3010035/posts
I called fake on this and the "N-word receipt" from a few months ago.
41944
Post by: Swan-of-War
Doesn't top the Nebraska woman, but remember the kid who fell down while drunk and claimed he was "gay-bashed"?
Back when I was in college, a lesbian couple claimed they were having crosses burnt into their lawn. Guess who was really doing it? One of them even went as far as to pretend to be in a wheelchair to garner sympathy.
This type of behavior isn't limited to the LGBT community either - some people are just messed in the head.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
People will lie to get attention. The only difference is that gays and lesbians can get attentin because they are a hot topic now
72490
Post by: gossipmeng
On the topic of tips...... I find some fast food chains are leaving the tip option on the debit machine now. I tip 15% when I'm seated and waited on over the course of roughly an hour. Why would I be obligated to tip a cashier/guy who throws a burger together in 2 minutes. They would be entitled to 0.5% in that case 
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
I tip at subway, because they actually make my food.
23
Post by: djones520
They make your food the same way the guys at Taco Bell do. Sans bread it's all pre-packaged stuff that they put on a line and make to order. Taco Bell does the same exact thing. Automatically Appended Next Post: More details coming out, it sounds like she's a giant attention whore.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/27/gay-new-jersey-waitress-in-tip-flap-is-compulsive-liar-friends-say/
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
Wow, anybody who lies about their service, Being raped, or death of a family member really deserves a special place in Hell. Along with people who talk in the theater.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
 djones520 wrote:
They make your food the same way the guys at Taco Bell do. Sans bread it's all pre-packaged stuff that they put on a line and make to order. Taco Bell does the same exact thing.
Well, I do feel sorry for them. They(Atleast at the one I frequent) Are there all alone for a few hours, doing the cooking, register, bread making and stuff like that. And I know that sucks.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
You would think that some cursory fact checking would have revealed her past history with tall tales.
Or am I meant to pour scorn on the source just because its Fox News?
5470
Post by: sebster
Swan-of-War wrote:This type of behavior isn't limited to the LGBT community either - some people are just messed in the head.
It's common enough for people to pretend to have serious illnesses that it's got it's own name - Munchausen syndrome. And if you want to get really depressed, there's Munchausen by proxy, in which a person feigns illness in a dependant, commonly a parent making out their child has a serious illness.
As you say, some people are just messed in the head. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Dreadclaw69 wrote:You would think that some cursory fact checking would have revealed her past history with tall tales.
Or am I meant to pour scorn on the source just because its Fox News?
No, but we're supposed to pour scorn on you for assuming that cursory fact checking is the kind of thing news agencies do any more 
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 hotsauceman1 wrote: djones520 wrote:
They make your food the same way the guys at Taco Bell do. Sans bread it's all pre-packaged stuff that they put on a line and make to order. Taco Bell does the same exact thing.
Well, I do feel sorry for them. They(Atleast at the one I frequent) Are there all alone for a few hours, doing the cooking, register, bread making and stuff like that. And I know that sucks.
Why? It's a job. An entry level poopy fast food job. We've all worked them. There's nothing to feel bad about.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Because it flipping sucks being stuck alone when lunch hits? I have been down that road(Still am) and maybe being nice and a few tips would make it less gakky?
23
Post by: djones520
hotsauceman1 wrote:Because it flipping sucks being stuck alone when lunch hits? I have been down that road(Still am) and maybe being nice and a few tips would make it less gakky?
That's your thing I guess. Me, I never expected anything like that when I worked fast food. I actually enjoyed that gak, made the time fly by fast.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Well my job we cant legally accept tips. So i never expect them.
but im confused then. Why tip a Waiter, who only brought your food and drinks, but not a fastfood guy wh made, package it, rang you up and so forth?
9883
Post by: Cyporiean
hotsauceman1 wrote:Well my job we cant legally accept tips. So i never expect them.
but im confused then. Why tip a Waiter, who only brought your food and drinks, but not a fastfood guy wh made, package it, rang you up and so forth?
Because the Waiter makes $2.75/ hr and the McJob makes $7.46/ hr.
5470
Post by: sebster
hotsauceman1 wrote:Well my job we cant legally accept tips. So i never expect them.
but im confused then. Why tip a Waiter, who only brought your food and drinks, but not a fastfood guy wh made, package it, rang you up and so forth?
Because of expectations. I mean, why not tip your lawyer, who turned up at the station in the wee hours of the morning and managed to scare the police enough that they decided not to continue searching your car for traces of blood? Because the lawyer has a fee that already pays him well for his time and effort. Same for the fast food worker, what you pay for the meatball sub is covers the kid's pay, which is comparable with similar jobs of similar skill.
Whereas the waiter at the restaurant doesn't have his real wage covered by the bill for the food. And his pay outside of tips is woeful. So really he needs tips in order to get a decent pay.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
sebster wrote:No, but we're supposed to pour scorn on you for assuming that cursory fact checking is the kind of thing news agencies do any more
I know I still hope against hope that media (especially online) will start being first with the facts, and not just first
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Since when has facts gotten in the way of sensational news stories
70365
Post by: Gentleman_Jellyfish
sebster wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:Well my job we cant legally accept tips. So i never expect them.
but im confused then. Why tip a Waiter, who only brought your food and drinks, but not a fastfood guy wh made, package it, rang you up and so forth?
Whereas the waiter at the restaurant doesn't have his real wage covered by the bill for the food. And his pay outside of tips is woeful. So really he needs tips in order to get a decent pay.
That's what I'm curious about. Why not change the laws so that they are on an even playing field with every other job? Why do restaurants get this special system?
5470
Post by: sebster
Dreadclaw69 wrote:I know I still hope against hope that media (especially online) will start being first with the facts, and not just first
I guess they'll change when we start demanding it of them. So not any time soon Automatically Appended Next Post: Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:That's what I'm curious about. Why not change the laws so that they are on an even playing field with every other job? Why do restaurants get this special system?
The industry, and it's pay, have evolved to match the custom of tipping. Why that happened I don't know. Why did it become such a fixture of the US system and nowhere else, I don't know.
I can tell you that restaurant service is so much better in the US than anywhere else I've been, so it's a system that has at least something pretty significant going for it.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
Tipping is in Canada too.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
What is a "Canada"
Funny, Someone tried to get me to accept canadian money at work.
39188
Post by: Bullockist
sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:That's what I'm curious about. Why not change the laws so that they are on an even playing field with every other job? Why do restaurants get this special system?
The industry, and it's pay, have evolved to match the custom of tipping. Why that happened I don't know. Why did it become such a fixture of the US system and nowhere else, I don't know.
I can tell you that restaurant service is so much better in the US than anywhere else I've been, so it's a system that has at least something pretty significant going for it.
I read this as " The industry and it's gay, have evolved to match the custom of tipping". .... After reading this "news story" I am not so sure it has.
76800
Post by: DogofWar1
It's unfortunate when someone perpetrates a hoax like this, if this was indeed one, because it discredits people who actually are getting discriminated against.
On the issue of tipping, restaurants should simply do away with tipping en masse and raise food prices to provide decent wages. Sure, some servers suck and don't deserve good tips, but most bust their rears all day and often have little to show for it. They also have to be the middle man between the cooks and the customers, which means when either gets pissed (usually the cooks at the customers or vice versa) waiters are stuck dealing with it. I really feel for them.
In addition, I know that there are people out there who are prejudiced and are dicks about it. There was another story out in Kansas similar to this one. I don't know the veracity of that one, but I checked news and haven't seen anything discrediting yet. Either way, I have little doubt that people use their prejudices to excuse being crappy people.
Basically, failing to tip decently at a restaurant makes you a bad person who should feel bad about being bad. Failing to tip decently not only because you're cheap, but also because you're prejudiced makes you doubly bad.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 DogofWar1 wrote:.
On the issue of tipping, restaurants should simply do away with tipping en masse and raise food prices to provide decent wages. Sure, some servers suck and don't deserve good tips, but most bust their rears all day and often have little to show for it. They also have to be the middle man between the cooks and the customers, which means when either gets pissed (usually the cooks at the customers or vice versa) waiters are stuck dealing with it. I really feel for them.
.
You understand this would most probably hurt business and in turn cost them even more money, right?
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Then how do other resturants, In other countries, do it??
39188
Post by: Bullockist
They pay minimum wage and tips are optional , also i think food is way more expensive to buy.
I've been a waiter, waiters deserve tips just for dealing with the public , normal everyday people seem to turn into demanding freaks upon entering a restaurant. I thing the best thing to remember when eating out that the rule of judging how someone is by their treatment of waiters is a really good rule of thumb to judge people by.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
They don't just indiscriminately raise prices to provide higher wages. The wages for servers already have a precedent that doesn't include tips, and the food is already priced accordingly. Changing the economics of how server wages are paid by the employer by simply raising food prices will absolutely affect business.
When your outback special goes from $12.99 to $19.99 your purchasing demographic is going to be affected.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Bullockist wrote:They pay minimum wage and tips are optional , also i think food is way more expensive to buy.
I've been a waiter, waiters deserve tips just for dealing with the public , normal everyday people seem to turn into demanding freaks upon entering a restaurant. I thing the best thing to remember when eating out that the rule of judging how someone is by their treatment of waiters is a really good rule of thumb to judge people by.
My family is so critical of waiters it disgusts me. they give the sprite to the kid and not to the adult "No tip"
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
sebster wrote:
Except the statement was 'I don't agree with your lifestyle'... which is totally fething different.
It's incredible, this inability of people to understand this isn't just an abstract political position, but actual people's lives.
Social justice warriors, assemble!
Faux internet outrage has been monetized. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
39188
Post by: Bullockist
I'm assuming the social justice warriors are similar to the Avengers but never leave HQ as they are too busy sitting in a committee discussing who has the greater privilege. Automatically Appended Next Post: hotsauceman1 wrote:Bullockist wrote:They pay minimum wage and tips are optional , also i think food is way more expensive to buy.
I've been a waiter, waiters deserve tips just for dealing with the public , normal everyday people seem to turn into demanding freaks upon entering a restaurant. I thing the best thing to remember when eating out that the rule of judging how someone is by their treatment of waiters is a really good rule of thumb to judge people by.
My family is so critical of waiters it disgusts me. they give the sprite to the kid and not to the adult "No tip"
If the kid orders the sprite shouldn't the kid receive the sprite?
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
76800
Post by: DogofWar1
cincydooley wrote:
You understand this would most probably hurt business and in turn cost them even more money, right?
I doubt it would hurt business too much if at all. Most people at least briefly calculate tip cost into restaurant trips, or, if they don't they probably don't worry too much about cost in the first place. Changing something like a burger from $10 to $12 isn't a huge, paradigm shattering change, especially once you do away with tipping. The mental "things cost more so I'm going to eat out less" thing will wear off as soon as people realize they don't have to tip that $2 they used to and that it's six of one, half-dozen of another.
Heck, there's pressure involved in tipping too. Sitting there having to calculate it, deciding if it's enough, etc. Taking that out of the customers' hands is probably something they'd appreciate. No one doing math after dinner.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Actually, Many resturants account tips, pool them, then distribute them evenly.
And what do you mean? I love me some algorithms after a good steak.
76800
Post by: DogofWar1
hotsauceman1 wrote:Actually, Many resturants account tips, pool them, then distribute them evenly.
And what do you mean? I love me some algorithms after a good steak.
Personally I don't care for that system of pooling tips. If you're building a system designed around creating an incentive to perform good work to make more money, why would you then set up a system that removes the incentive?
I can understand the pros of having a pooling system, after all, tall attractive woman server with the bubbly personality is almost certainly getting much better tips than others who provide equally good service, but at the same time, if someone is really putting in the effort, and they're rewarded, they deserve to not have their effort made less important.
And while I don't mind the math, it's an extra step, usually one that stands between me finishing food/drink there and moving to the next bar/club/whatever, so just adding tip makes things that much quicker.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
So we know the price increase to account for higher wages is going to be less than 20%? Because if it is, those prices are now more than I would have had to pay had i purchased the $10 burger and left the $2 tip.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
But white people aren't a minority (at least in Canada and the US) that comic doesn't make any sense.
76800
Post by: DogofWar1
cincydooley wrote:So we know the price increase to account for higher wages is going to be less than 20%? Because if it is, those prices are now more than I would have had to pay had i purchased the $10 burger and left the $2 tip.
More than likely. I can't say with 100% certainty, but consider that if everyone who walked into a restaurant tipped 20%, waiters in restaurants with enough volume to stay open in the first place would almost certainly be making a livable wage. I mean, a family of four with a $40 bill, tipping 20%, puts down $8, which, with their $2 salary, results in them getting $10 for that hour, not including any other tables. I seriously doubt food prices would have to increase by more than 20% to accommodate for getting to minimum, or possibly even a livable wage.
The problems with wages come in when you have slow times, and waiters have to compete for the good hours, or you have a poorly planned seating arrangement, or get a string of bad tippers.
Sticking it into the food prices solves a lot of those problems. No longer to waiters have to fight over the good hours, or fret over when a family that's supposed to sit in their section asks to be sat somewhere else.
Heck, at restaurants that do a high volume of business, prices might not need to rise 20% for them to break even. A lot of busy restaurants get enough people over the course of a week that if you added 20% to the total they spent on food, it'd likely be well over what was necessary to get waiters to a decent wage.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
You're missing the point. It isn't about the restaurant. It's about the customer. As a good tipper, I plan on giving a 20% tip unless service is bad or exceptional, where I adjust accordingly. As such, my $10 meal in my mind costs me $12 already. If prices raise 30% due to the wage being fully funded by the restaurant, I'm now paying $13 for that meal instead of the $12 I planned. And now there's no guarantee that my service will have warranted that additional $1 I'm paying. So now, I'm rethinking if I even want to go out at all.
5470
Post by: sebster
Well you're just America's hat.
They're trying to bring it in here as well. In some more upmarket places it's now expected. Automatically Appended Next Post: Bullockist wrote:I read this as " The industry and it's gay, have evolved to match the custom of tipping". ....
Automatically Appended Next Post: cincydooley wrote:You understand this would most probably hurt business and in turn cost them even more money, right?
This how most of the rest of the world does it, and we still have restaurants and stuff.
The impact would likely be to service, through incentive and all that. But against that you'd have people that could rely on a regular wage, and not just the good fortune of whether they had generous customers that night. And you'd get rid of the tax weirdness where waitstaff are taxed on what they probably earned in tips.
241
Post by: Ahtman
 Cheesecat wrote:But white people aren't a minority (at least in Canada and the US) that comic doesn't make any sense.
It is mocking people that act, and sometimes think, that they are.
5470
Post by: sebster
cincydooley wrote:They don't just indiscriminately raise prices to provide higher wages. The wages for servers already have a precedent that doesn't include tips, and the food is already priced accordingly. Changing the economics of how server wages are paid by the employer by simply raising food prices will absolutely affect business.
When your outback special goes from $12.99 to $19.99 your purchasing demographic is going to be affected.
No, absolutely not. Just think it through.
You have an outback special on the menu, with an expected 15% tip. This means that person goes in to that restaurant expecting to pay $14.94 in total for his meal.
Now let's say there's no tipping, but the waitstaff is paid more. We know from the above that the income received from waiting on a guy eating a steak is $1.95. So now instead of receiving say 6 tips of $1.95 an hour, he's instead receiving about $11.70 in increased wages and no tips. To cover the expense of that $11.70, the restaurant increases the cost of the steak by the increase in wages, per outback special served. Which works out to, you guessed it, $1.95 for each meal. So now the upfront price is $14.94... the exact same as what it was before.
This is just maths, mate.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
 Ahtman wrote: Cheesecat wrote:But white people aren't a minority (at least in Canada and the US) that comic doesn't make any sense.
It is mocking people that act, and sometimes think, that they are.
Yeah, I couldn't tell if it was sarcastic or not as there are some people who literally have that mentality described in the comic.
5470
Post by: sebster
 Monster Rain wrote:Social justice warriors, assemble!
Faux internet outrage has been monetized. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Yeah, pointing out that it isn't just a difference of opinion, but a thing that actually impacts how some people live is faux outrage. For feth's sake.
76800
Post by: DogofWar1
cincydooley wrote:You're missing the point. It isn't about the restaurant. It's about the customer. As a good tipper, I plan on giving a 20% tip unless service is bad or exceptional, where I adjust accordingly. As such, my $10 meal in my mind costs me $12 already. If prices raise 30% due to the wage being fully funded by the restaurant, I'm now paying $13 for that meal instead of the $12 I planned. And now there's no guarantee that my service will have warranted that additional $1 I'm paying. So now, I'm rethinking if I even want to go out at all.
And I was saying that it's unlikely you'll end up paying $13 in that scenario. If everyone tipped 20%, all waitstaff would make minimum wage, and probably above that by a fair amount, provided they didn't get shafted on shifts and seating arrangements. So if 20% tipping covers minimum wage and then some, why would food prices suddenly increase 30%? There has to be some part of the chain that raises prices more than 20%. As it stands, you'd be raising wages by maybe $8ish dollars an hour per server from $2 to $10. So, week to week, how much do food prices have to go up for that to work? Well, at a minimum, a server has to put through the system an average of $48, which equates to $40 meal + $8 tip in the current system, as that gives them the $8 extra. The question is, can a restaurant, across all servers, hit that minimum average? I think most can, once you've averaged out busy times like Weekends with slower times like weekdays. Only if a restaurant couldn't hit that minimum average, would food prices need to increase more than 20%. That's why it might actually decrease total price as busier places, most of them likely are way over the $48 per server per hour minimum average amount, and the more you go over that, the less price needs to increase; consider a busy place, like an IHOP in a city or something, maybe they move an average of $80 per server per hour across the week currently, meaning they need only increase food prices 10% to make up that $8 difference. Sebster hit pretty much the same point with his math.
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
Without tipping the level of customer service would be the same as retail stores or fast food: Non-existent.
Good servers make good money because they take damn good care of people. gakky servers make less and should move on to a job they don't have to care about.
Seb, not approving of someone's lifestyle only affects that person's life if they let it happen. Or if they just make up the entire scenario.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Let's pretend that the person who perpetrated an internet hoax is some sort of civil rights martyr and laud the contrived outrage over it as a sign of progress.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
sebster wrote: cincydooley wrote:They don't just indiscriminately raise prices to provide higher wages. The wages for servers already have a precedent that doesn't include tips, and the food is already priced accordingly. Changing the economics of how server wages are paid by the employer by simply raising food prices will absolutely affect business.
When your outback special goes from $12.99 to $19.99 your purchasing demographic is going to be affected.
No, absolutely not. Just think it through.
You have an outback special on the menu, with an expected 15% tip. This means that person goes in to that restaurant expecting to pay $14.94 in total for his meal.
Now let's say there's no tipping, but the waitstaff is paid more. We know from the above that the income received from waiting on a guy eating a steak is $1.95. So now instead of receiving say 6 tips of $1.95 an hour, he's instead receiving about $11.70 in increased wages and no tips. To cover the expense of that $11.70, the restaurant increases the cost of the steak by the increase in wages, per outback special served. Which works out to, you guessed it, $1.95 for each meal. So now the upfront price is $14.94... the exact same as what it was before.
This is just maths, mate.
But that makes the presumption that that's all they raise wages, which I'm not sure is an accurate assumption. Remember people gravitate towards serving jobs for the potential to make $30-40 bucks an hour on a solid serving night. They aren't doing it for $13.00 an hour.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
sebster wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote:I know I still hope against hope that media (especially online) will start being first with the facts, and not just first
I guess they'll change when we start demanding it of them. So not any time soon
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:That's what I'm curious about. Why not change the laws so that they are on an even playing field with every other job? Why do restaurants get this special system?
The industry, and it's pay, have evolved to match the custom of tipping. Why that happened I don't know. Why did it become such a fixture of the US system and nowhere else, I don't know.
I can tell you that restaurant service is so much better in the US than anywhere else I've been, so it's a system that has at least something pretty significant going for it.
Go to Japan.
Excellent service and no tipping.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Yeah I was about to bring up Japan as well. Incredible service in Japanese restaurants and not a tip in sight. I believe it's actually insulting, but I knew better then to offer one.
But Maj. Shawn Haney, a spokesman for the Marines, said in an email to The Journal News that while Morales did serve in the Marines Corps reserve from July 2009 to May 2013, there’s no indication in her record of combat service in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Also, Haney said, “while (Morales) did not fulfill her reserve obligation, per the Privacy Act, administrative actions are not releasable. The same applies to character of service and type of discharge.”
Ms. Morales sounds like a real winner in general though.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
In germant they get the difference of the bill and the cahs used to pay it. Typically
5470
Post by: sebster
cincydooley wrote:But that makes the presumption that that's all they raise wages, which I'm not sure is an accurate assumption. Remember people gravitate towards serving jobs for the potential to make $30-40 bucks an hour on a solid serving night. They aren't doing it for $13.00 an hour.
It works on the assumption that what was once paid in tips is now paid in wages. In order for prices to increase above what the tip used to be, you'd have to figure out a way of claiming that people who once collected $20 an hour in tips somehow secured a payrise in excess of $20.
 SlaveToDorkness wrote:Without tipping the level of customer service would be the same as retail stores or fast food: Non-existent.
Having experienced the difference in service standards in non-tipping countries and tipping countries, I think this is the big advantage of tipping. Service in US restaurants is incredible... and it isn't just a cultural thing, because service in non-tipping situations is the same or perhaps worse than what you'd get here.
Whether that higher standard of service is worth the costs of tipping, in terms of waitstaff having really unreliable pay, and the hassle of having to figure out how much extra you have to leave at the end of the night, I'm not so sure. But it certainly has a dramatic effect on the quality of service.
Seb, not approving of someone's lifestyle only affects that person's life if they let it happen. Or if they just make up the entire scenario.
Or if there are laws involved, such as marriage laws. Or if a disapproving person ever holds power over them, such as in a job interview or loan application.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I was unimpressed by the service in the USA, after the stories I had heard about it being fantastic. It wasn't generally any better than normally good English service, and in some cases -- not cheap places either -- it was worse.
Service everywhere in Japan is much better than the USA or UK, except sometimes when it isn't.
It's nothing to do with tipping. It is the overall culture and the individual's personality.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
 KalashnikovMarine wrote:Yeah I was about to bring up Japan as well. Incredible service in Japanese restaurants and not a tip in sight. I believe it's actually insulting, but I knew better then to offer one.
But Maj. Shawn Haney, a spokesman for the Marines, said in an email to The Journal News that while Morales did serve in the Marines Corps reserve from July 2009 to May 2013, there’s no indication in her record of combat service in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Also, Haney said, “while (Morales) did not fulfill her reserve obligation, per the Privacy Act, administrative actions are not releasable. The same applies to character of service and type of discharge.”
Ms. Morales sounds like a real winner in general though.
www.nbcnews.com/ id/53683016#.Upgr_OJAd82
According to NBC Morales has a DHD (Dishonorable Discharge) on her record. So that makes her an "Ex-marine" (because she's no longer fit to hold the title) ...and it's kinda shocking she can hold down work.
39188
Post by: Bullockist
Incidentally would lying be a possible reason to get a dishonourable discharge? 
23
Post by: djones520
Bullockist wrote:Incidentally would lying be a possible reason to get a dishonourable discharge?
It takes some serious fething up to get a DHD. SERIOUS.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
A DHD means you are the civilian equivalent of a felon. You have all the same statuses in the civilian world too. From what that article said, she stopped showing up. Which would mean she went U.A. (Unauthorized Absence, the modern version of AWOL) so she probably caught her DHD for desertion.
39188
Post by: Bullockist
I gather there weren't enough butch women in the barracks so she went AWL . Im not shocked that no male who she serverd as a waitress "wanted to give her a tip"
'
Seriously, I'd really like to know how she got DHD.
5470
Post by: sebster
What prompted the change? About time for another acronym?
5534
Post by: dogma
Bullockist wrote:I gather there weren't enough butch women in the barracks so she went AWL . Im not shocked that no male who she serverd as a waitress "wanted to give her a tip"
'
Well, that isn't chauvinistic at all. 
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
I'm terrible with the maths, so I tend to over tip for decent service, and I'm pretty easy to please as a customer because I know how rough of a job it is. So I tend to round up to the next dollar amount and then go 20% on that (so they get a little more than 20%).
On to the topic of this waitress though, it does seem like she was trying to play the sympathy card, which is despicable and harms others in her position (both lifestyle choices and job choices).
1464
Post by: Breotan
sebster wrote:What prompted the change? About time for another acronym?
UA has been around since at least the early 80s when I was in the Marines.
Still, given the dishonorable discharge, it is far less surprising that she'd pull a stunt like this.
46630
Post by: wowsmash
I always tip unless the service was terrible. If you want tips then you have to know how to work the customers.
Leave your real life problems at home. When you clock in you put on the smile. Its not about you, its about the customers. Be social but not annoying. Remember there name's. And never, ever let there drinks run out. Timing is everything drinks, appitizers and main dishes. Check back with the tables to make sure everything is ok but try not to do it when the customers mouth is full. Consider yourself a butler like Alfred and you'll do fine.
Rule number one "its not about you"
Its an art and as such some people suck at it and that's ok. You need to find a different job.
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
As the the BCD (Bad Conduct Discharge) she is alleged to have....
If you run away you normally get an administrative discharge, usually with either a general or other-than-honorable conditions (OTHC) discharge characterization.
In my 22 years of service every case I remember where the guy turned himself in there never was a court-martial, they just processed them out, even those that missed movement for war.
As to those who were was caught and dragged back because of something else they did at the same time the case would be referred to trial by court-martial. In every case I remember unless there was a violet crime (had two scouts that robbed a bank just before movement to Haiti as an example) the member was allowed to request "discharge in lieu of court-martial," which means they agree to accept an other-than-honorable conditions (OTHC) administrative discharge.
If she has a BCD she almost had to have done something that would have got her jail time in the civilian world.
39188
Post by: Bullockist
 dogma wrote:Bullockist wrote:I gather there weren't enough butch women in the barracks so she went AWL . Im not shocked that no male who she serverd as a waitress "wanted to give her a tip"
'
Well, that isn't chauvinistic at all.
This coming from the guy who insisted that waiters were not his peers 
Your use of chauvinism is misplaced anyway...
1464
Post by: Breotan
And this little stunt bought our "honest above reproach" waitress a suspension. http://news.yahoo.com/waitress-who-received-alleged-anti-gay-receipt-suspended-pending-investigation-205841873.html Jay Busbee wrote:Waitress who received alleged anti-gay receipt suspended pending investigation The New Jersey waitress who claimed she received an anti-gay message in lieu of a tip has been suspended pending an investigation. Dayna Morales, a waitress at the Gallop Asian Bistro restaurant in Bridgewater, N.J., said that a couple who ate at the restaurant paid their bill but left no tip, saying "I'm sorry but I cannot tip because I do not agree with your lifestyle and how you live your life." Morales is gay. However, the couple later came forward and provided their copy of the receipt to counter Morales' charges, along with a copy of the credit card statement indicating that the tip had been included. Now, the restaurant has suspended Morales pending its investigation into her conduct. “Ms. Morales is currently not on our employee schedule while we are still working to complete our investigation," the restaurant wrote on its Facebook page. Both the husband and the wife who ate the meal strongly protested the allegation that they left an anti-gay "tip," with the wife noting that she is left-handed and does not write like the receipt indicates, and the husband saying he did not vote for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie because of his opposition to gay marriage. Morales, in turn, has said the handwriting is not hers. In the wake of the incident, Morales has drawn criticism from her co-workers. Morales, an ex-Marine, was reportedly discharged from the Reserve Corps in May under conditions other than honorable for failing to attend drills.
411
Post by: whitedragon
sebster wrote:
What prompted the change? About time for another acronym?
This explains the difference between AWOL and UA.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/awoldesertion.htm
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:As the the BCD (Bad Conduct Discharge) she is alleged to have....
If you run away you normally get an administrative discharge, usually with either a general or other-than-honorable conditions (OTHC) discharge characterization.
In my 22 years of service every case I remember where the guy turned himself in there never was a court-martial, they just processed them out, even those that missed movement for war.
As to those who were was caught and dragged back because of something else they did at the same time the case would be referred to trial by court-martial. In every case I remember unless there was a violet crime (had two scouts that robbed a bank just before movement to Haiti as an example) the member was allowed to request "discharge in lieu of court-martial," which means they agree to accept an other-than-honorable conditions (OTHC) administrative discharge.
If she has a BCD she almost had to have done something that would have got her jail time in the civilian world.
A DHD is what she is purported to have received, not a Big Chicken Dinner.
39188
Post by: Bullockist
I think you are born with ADHD you don't recieve it .... though maybe ADHD does explain military personell on nights out .
37231
Post by: d-usa
But according to the military spokesperson she was discharged administratively, and from talking with a lawyer friend who specializes in military things that means it could not have been a DHD.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
KalashnikovMarine wrote: NeedleOfInquiry wrote:As the the BCD (Bad Conduct Discharge) she is alleged to have....
If you run away you normally get an administrative discharge, usually with either a general or other-than-honorable conditions (OTHC) discharge characterization.
In my 22 years of service every case I remember where the guy turned himself in there never was a court-martial, they just processed them out, even those that missed movement for war.
As to those who were was caught and dragged back because of something else they did at the same time the case would be referred to trial by court-martial. In every case I remember unless there was a violet crime (had two scouts that robbed a bank just before movement to Haiti as an example) the member was allowed to request "discharge in lieu of court-martial," which means they agree to accept an other-than-honorable conditions (OTHC) administrative discharge.
If she has a BCD she almost had to have done something that would have got her jail time in the civilian world.
A DHD is what she is purported to have received, not a Big Chicken Dinner.
See this is why I decided not to join the military, All the acronyms.
33125
Post by: Seaward
The Navy's at least make sense, like FASOTRAGRUPAC or MFHBCMA.
12313
Post by: Ouze
 Breotan wrote:And this little stunt bought our "honest above reproach" waitress a suspension.
"Hand in your notepad and pen! You're off the force!"
"I don't care what you say, Sarge. I'm still going to waitress on my own time."
"You're a loose cannon, Morales!"
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
 Ouze wrote: Breotan wrote:And this little stunt bought our "honest above reproach" waitress a suspension.
"Hand in your notepad and pen! You're off the force!"
"I don't care what you say, Sarge. I'm still going to waitress on my own time."
"You're a loose cannon, Morales!"
"Someone's gonna get served if you keep acting like that!"
Did I do it right?
27151
Post by: streamdragon
?
23
Post by: djones520
Dishonorable Discharge.
As someone else said in here, it's basically on par of being convicted of a felony.
27151
Post by: streamdragon
djones520 wrote:Dishonorable Discharge.
As someone else said in here, it's basically on par of being convicted of a felony.
Sorry, should have added a or something. My parents are both former military, so I know what the Dishonorable is.
For whatever reason the Dial Home Device from SG-1 immediately popped into my head when I read that post though.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Yeah the difference is a DHD in SG is a good and desireable item XD
5470
Post by: sebster
Interesting read, thanks
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/12/99012-lesbian-waitress-faked-anti-gay-receipt-message-suspended-job-faces-criminal-charges/
New Jersey waitress Dayna Morales began an online furor around a receipt message she says she received from customers at her job. The image of the receipt went viral with the message scrawled, “Sorry, I cannot tip because I do not agree with your lifestyle and the way you live your life.”
There’s only one problem – she made it up.
The ex-marine was praised by LGBT advocates, who believed her story hook, line and sinker, until the family who had supposedly written the offending message came out and provided proof that they had never written it. So that’s awkward.
Since then, the restaurant began their own investigation into the matter, and have now suspended her:
“Ms. Morales is currently not on our employee schedule while we are still working to complete our investigation,” the Gallop Asian Bistro restaurant posted on its Facebook page, New Jersey 101.5 reported.
The LGBT advocate crowd was more than happy to trumpet Dayna’s victimization by evil bigoted customers, but they’re a lot more quiet these days. The exonerated family is choosing to remain anonymous, but the clues in the receipt leave little doubt that they didn’t write the remark.
And it gets worse for Dayna:
…Kerry Lawrence, a former federal prosecutor and White Plains criminal defense lawyer, told WTSP that Morales could face criminal fraud charges if it is proven that she made money off of what looks like a hoax. If she donated all the proceeds (Morales posted that she was donating to the Wounded Warrior project), she would most likely not be prosecuted.
A few days before Thanksgiving, it was being reported that Dayna would be donating a portion of the donations, not the complete amount:
Now Morales wants to help others by giving a portion of the donations to the Wounded Warrior Project to help injured servicemen and women, according to NJ.com.
“I plan — being a veteran — to send a portion of it to the Wounded Warrior Fund,” she told WNBC. “It’s great to see everybody’s support and I’m thankful for it, but it doesn’t excuse or change the fact that it actually did happen.”
It is disgusting that she would lie in order to give LGBT advocates another fake story to make America seem more bigoted, and then further, to benefit financially by it.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
Question for those that have served, she has a Dishonorable Discharge, and is an ex-marine. So, since she was given the boot doesn't that mean she's not a veteran?
37231
Post by: d-usa
 Alfndrate wrote:Question for those that have served, she has a Dishonorable Discharge, and is an ex-marine. So, since she was given the boot doesn't that mean she's not a veteran?
There has been zero proof that she had a DHD, and according to a lawyer friend that specialized in these things it is impossible for her to have one based on the statements that were made by the military spokesperson.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
 d-usa wrote: Alfndrate wrote:Question for those that have served, she has a Dishonorable Discharge, and is an ex-marine. So, since she was given the boot doesn't that mean she's not a veteran?
There has been zero proof that she had a DHD, and according to a lawyer friend that specialized in these things it is impossible for her to have one based on the statements that were made by the military spokesperson.
I guess I missed the part where someone refuted KM's news article on the bottom of the last page. :-\
18698
Post by: kronk
If she lied and then kept any of the money that poured in, I hope her ass goes to jail for fraud.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Alfndrate wrote: d-usa wrote: Alfndrate wrote:Question for those that have served, she has a Dishonorable Discharge, and is an ex-marine. So, since she was given the boot doesn't that mean she's not a veteran?
There has been zero proof that she had a DHD, and according to a lawyer friend that specialized in these things it is impossible for her to have one based on the statements that were made by the military spokesperson.
I guess I missed the part where someone refuted KM's news article on the bottom of the last page. :-\
According to my lawyer friend:
The military spokesperson mentioned an administrative discharge, which could only be used for the following kinds of discharges:
Entry level, Honorable, General, Other Than Honorable and Clemency.
To get a Bad Conduct or DHD you would have to go through a punitive discharge instead of an administrative discharge.
That doesn't mean she was a good person or a good soldier, just that her discharge was not "felon-level".
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
Okay, so because she wasn't given a DHD, she's still technically a veteran then right?
37231
Post by: d-usa
Alfndrate wrote:Okay, so because she wasn't given a DHD, she's still technically a veteran then right?
Well, that probably depends on the definition of veteran used.
If Veteran = somebody that served in the military once, then even people with a DHD are veterans.
If Veteran = somebody eligible for veterans benefits, then it would probably depend on her exact type of discharge.
If Veteran = somebody that has earned the right to call themselves a veteran in the eyes of other veterans or civilians then your questions becomes a lot more cloudy.
Technically she is a veteran, she could even still benefit for benefits based on her discharge. But there will be people who feel that she lost the "right" to call herself one.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Is there a military definition v civilian definition?
37231
Post by: d-usa
Yes, just like "assault weapons"... Or, you know, you could actually read what I typed. By definition: if she served in the military she is a veteran independent of type of discharge. Legally: if she served in the US military she could qualify for veterans benefits depending on the type of discharge. Other veterans and some civilians: might feel that she lost the right to call herself a veteran based on what she has done in the service or after.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
d-usa wrote:
Yes, just like "assault weapons"...
Or, you know, you could actually read what I typed.
By definition: if she served in the military she is a veteran independent of type of discharge.
Legally: if she served in the US military she could qualify for veterans benefits depending on the type of discharge.
Other veterans and some civilians: might feel that she lost the right to call herself a veteran based on what she has done in the service or after.
I'm not certain what the snark is for. What I asked was whether there was a military definition (likely in a military code or UCMJ), and a civilian definition. That was it. You didn't give any indication whether you were using the military's definition, or a civilian's definition. I was curious as to what distinction there was between them, if any.
But thank you for the clarification.
37231
Post by: d-usa
 Dreadclaw69 wrote: d-usa wrote:
Yes, just like "assault weapons"...
Or, you know, you could actually read what I typed.
By definition: if she served in the military she is a veteran independent of type of discharge.
Legally: if she served in the US military she could qualify for veterans benefits depending on the type of discharge.
Other veterans and some civilians: might feel that she lost the right to call herself a veteran based on what she has done in the service or after.
I'm not certain what the snark is for. What I asked was whether there was a military definition (likely in a military code or UCMJ), and a civilian definition. That was it. You didn't give any indication whether you were using the military's definition, or a civilian's definition. I was curious as to what distinction there was between them, if any.
d-usa wrote:
If Veteran = somebody that served in the military once, then even people with a DHD are veterans.
If Veteran = somebody eligible for veterans benefits, then it would probably depend on her exact type of discharge.
If Veteran = somebody that has earned the right to call themselves a veteran in the eyes of other veterans or civilians then your questions becomes a lot more cloudy.
Technically she is a veteran, she could even still benefit for benefits based on her discharge. But there will be people who feel that she lost the "right" to call herself one.
Sorry if that wasn't clear enough.
But thank you for the clarification.
Glad it only took two posts saying the same thing to get there. 
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
d-usa wrote: Alfndrate wrote:Okay, so because she wasn't given a DHD, she's still technically a veteran then right?
Well, that probably depends on the definition of veteran used. If Veteran = somebody that served in the military once, then even people with a DHD are veterans. If Veteran = somebody eligible for veterans benefits, then it would probably depend on her exact type of discharge. If Veteran = somebody that has earned the right to call themselves a veteran in the eyes of other veterans or civilians then your questions becomes a lot more cloudy. Technically she is a veteran, she could even still benefit for benefits based on her discharge. But there will be people who feel that she lost the "right" to call herself one.
That clears it up, I guess I was basing it off of the second definition you have there, but I felt like if she was discharged for any sort of disciplinary action she'd lose the right to call herself a veteran, which just muddies the waters. Thanks d
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
d-usa wrote:Glad it only took two posts saying the same thing to get there.
Well when one post doesn't say what you're basing your definitions off, and you're asked if you were working off the military definition or a civilian definition, that is me looking for clarification.
Again, no need for the snarky attitude.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Guys
guys
you're probably not going to believe this, but.... you know how she said she was going to donate that money to Wounded Warrior?
Yeah, that, uh, doesn't seem to have shown up yet.
18698
Post by: kronk
 kronk wrote:If she lied and then kept any of the money that poured in, I hope her ass goes to jail for fraud.
Then I stick with the above and hope the family slaps her ass with a slander and libel suit.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
Well, maybe if she didn't send it as a cashier's check this wouldn't have happened!
12313
Post by: Ouze
As always I agree with Kronk. I support people's rights to lie as much as they want to - as a matter of fact I fought for that right when I was a Seal-Sniper in the Marine Core - but once you start to gain something of value from your lies, we have crossed the threshold into fraud.
30287
Post by: Bromsy
Ouze wrote:As always I agree with Kronk. I support people's rights to lie as much as they want to - as a matter of fact I fought for that right when I was a Seal-Sniper in the Marine Core - but once you start to gain something of value from your lies, we have crossed the threshold into fraud.
I didn't do twenty six tours in Iraq so this fraud could steal money from honest folks.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
Guys, I'm not a hero, I'm just a regular person like each and everyone one of you.
23
Post by: djones520
Alfndrate wrote:Question for those that have served, she has a Dishonorable Discharge, and is an ex-marine. So, since she was given the boot doesn't that mean she's not a veteran?
According to this.
http://military-law.lawyers.com/veterans-benefits/Discharges-and-Their-Effect-on-Veteran-Benefits.html
All Veteran benefits are lost when you get a DHD. Semantically, you might still be able to be called a "veteran", but you technically aren't in any way. Automatically Appended Next Post: As for Morales getting a DHD... while I jumped on that right away, from what I recall it's illegal to disclose such information, so I'm not sure if it is accurate. Now, I would not be surprised if she got forcibly discharged, but a DHD requires a full blown court martial, and not showing up for drills, alone, just doesn't ping my radar as something that they'd do that for.
30287
Post by: Bromsy
It's sounding like she didn't get a dishonorable, if they are saying it was administrative rather than punitive. I'd assume an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions, which a less well versed in military protocol or an overzealous individual could easily confuse with a dishonorable. Either way she sounds like a liar and a pretty awful person.
(And personally I only consider you a "real" vet if you were at least deployed to a combat zone for a reasonable facsimile of a full tour or spent at least 8 years in the military in some sort of circumstances that didn't allow for you to be deployed.)
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Im trying to fallow this stuff about the DHD but it makes my head hurt. Cant we just call her a jerk and be done with it?
30287
Post by: Bromsy
hotsauceman1 wrote:Im trying to fallow this stuff about the DHD but it makes my head hurt. Cant we just call her a jerk and be done with it?
It's actually not that hard, there are basically two types of discharges from the military. There are the "You are not a criminal" discharges, and the "You are a criminal" discharges.
With that there are different rankings
"You are not a criminal" (or administrative) consists of
-Honorable- You lived up to your end of the contract you signed. High five, bro.
-General (Under Honorable Conditions)- You are a gakbag and you didn't really live up to your end of the contract but you didn't do anything super terrible. We don't want you anymore because you are more trouble than you are worth.
-Other Than Honorable- You are a severe gakbag, and you did something really bad, but either you are being tried by a civilian court for whatever you did, or we don't have enough evidence/desire to try you ourselves and just want you gone.
- note that once you hit this 'level' you are not allowed to retain your uniforms and wear them home.
"You are a criminal" or punitive discharge -
Bad Conduct Discharge - You are a goddamned criminal, and were stupid enough to get caught, but you aren't heinous enough for a dishonorable. (Or you pissed hot on a drug test and your commander doesn't like you.)
Dishonorable Discharge - You were convicted by a court-martial of something fairly awful. You are most definitely not entitled to refer to yourself as whatever branch you were in (you are no longer a soldier/sailor/marine/airpersonage) and are probably a pretty terrible person. Go die in a fire.
76036
Post by: TheEyeOfNight
 Bromsy wrote:
-Honorable- You lived up to your end of the contract you signed. High five, bro.
-General (Under Honorable Conditions)- You are a gakbag and you didn't really live up to your end of the contract but you didn't do anything super terrible. We don't want you anymore because you are more trouble than you are worth.
-Other Than Honorable- You are a severe gakbag, and you did something really bad, but either you are being tried by a civilian court for whatever you did, or we don't have enough evidence/desire to try you ourselves and just want you gone.
- note that once you hit this 'level' you are not allowed to retain your uniforms and wear them home.
"You are a criminal" or punitive discharge -
Bad Conduct Discharge - You are a goddamned criminal, and were stupid enough to get caught, but you aren't heinous enough for a dishonorable. (Or you pissed hot on a drug test and your commander doesn't like you.)
Dishonorable Discharge - You were convicted by a court-martial of something fairly awful. You are most definitely not entitled to refer to yourself as whatever branch you were in (you are no longer a soldier/sailor/marine/airpersonage) and are probably a pretty terrible person. Go die in a fire.
I'm saving this for the next time I have to explain the rules to a new enlistee. Thanks for the laugh
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Instant Classic, Take an exalt Bromsy.
74772
Post by: the shrouded lord
And the sociopath joins the frey!
1. How the feth would the couple know she was gay, I have a friend/ more of an aquaintance who is named Daniella she likes the nick-name dan.
2. I fething HATE people who use things like this to their advantage (gay, woman, black, brown, polkadots) i mean, when it comes down to it, were all mutations of the same microbe, yes?
Also, thanks for the luls^
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Lets have a show of hands for all those surprised.....
I did manage to chuckle at this line in the article though "after claiming she was stiffed on a tip for being gay"
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
TheEyeOfNight wrote:
I'm saving this for the next time I have to explain the rules to a new enlistee. Thanks for the laugh
I would hope you'd use the "High five, bro" as well when explaining it.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 the shrouded lord wrote:And the sociopath joins the frey!
1. How the feth would the couple know she was gay, I have a friend/ more of an aquaintance who is named Daniella she likes the nick-name dan.
2. I fething HATE people who use things like this to their advantage (gay, woman, black, brown, polkadots) i mean, when it comes down to it, were all mutations of the same microbe, yes?
Also, thanks for the luls^
I realize it's completely prejudicial and probably shameful for me to say this....but if you take a look at her you can probably make a reasonable hypothesis that she's not interested in dudes....
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Bromsy wrote:It's actually not that hard, there are basically two types of discharges from the military. There are the "You are not a criminal" discharges, and the "You are a criminal" discharges.
With that there are different rankings
"You are not a criminal" (or administrative) consists of
-Honorable- You lived up to your end of the contract you signed. High five, bro.
-General (Under Honorable Conditions)- You are a gakbag and you didn't really live up to your end of the contract but you didn't do anything super terrible. We don't want you anymore because you are more trouble than you are worth.
-Other Than Honorable- You are a severe gakbag, and you did something really bad, but either you are being tried by a civilian court for whatever you did, or we don't have enough evidence/desire to try you ourselves and just want you gone.
- note that once you hit this 'level' you are not allowed to retain your uniforms and wear them home.
"You are a criminal" or punitive discharge -
Bad Conduct Discharge - You are a goddamned criminal, and were stupid enough to get caught, but you aren't heinous enough for a dishonorable. (Or you pissed hot on a drug test and your commander doesn't like you.)
Dishonorable Discharge - You were convicted by a court-martial of something fairly awful. You are most definitely not entitled to refer to yourself as whatever branch you were in (you are no longer a soldier/sailor/marine/airpersonage) and are probably a pretty terrible person. Go die in a fire.
Fantastic summary for us non-military types, thank you
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Well, there's a Military definition, a civilian definiton, and actually a VA definition, lol....
The military: been to a warzone
Civilian: worn the uniform
VA: in order to receive benefits must meet a list of requirements... If not all of them are met, may still qualify, just for less or lower levels of benefits.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
 Ensis Ferrae wrote:Well, there's a Military definition, a civilian definiton, and actually a VA definition, lol....
The military: been to a warzone
Civilian: worn the uniform
VA: in order to receive benefits must meet a list of requirements... If not all of them are met, may still qualify, just for less or lower levels of benefits.
Thank you. The reason I asked was that my mother-in-law was surprised to find that when her husband died a few years ago that the government classified him as a veteran. He enlisted during Vietnam before he was drafted, and was a medic with the Air Force, but he was only ever stationed in Northern Michigan. He never spoke of himself as a Vietnam Veteran.
1464
Post by: Breotan
If she stopped showing up for drills, it's likely she either got a BCD or got a month of brig (jail) time followed by an OTH.
22783
Post by: Soladrin
Hah, tipping. I only tip when deserved. Which means once every blue moon.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 Soladrin wrote:Hah, tipping. I only tip when deserved. Which means once every blue moon.
As said by someone that has clearly never worked in a restaurant In the US.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Also said by someone not in the US, where the tipping custom is very different from Europe.
Edit: (Just now noticed the "...in the US" part)
42144
Post by: cincydooley
I only typed one sentence.... Hahah. How can you have possibly skipped over it!
30287
Post by: Bromsy
cincydooley wrote:I only typed one sentence.... Hahah. How can you have possibly skipped over it!
In Oklahoma you don't have time to read whole sentences in between dodging tornadoes.
37231
Post by: d-usa
It is hard to concentrate with the sirens going off all the time and the constant in-out of the shelter business...
30287
Post by: Bromsy
d-usa wrote:It is hard to concentrate with the sirens going off all the time and the constant in-out of the shelter business...
Understandable.
121
Post by: Relapse
cincydooley wrote: Soladrin wrote:Hah, tipping. I only tip when deserved. Which means once every blue moon.
As said by someone that has clearly never worked in a restaurant In the US.
I used to work in a New Orleans hotel and can add to that by saying people from some European countries, most notably Finnland, were fairly bad about tipping, but wanted the most babying.
Rappers pretty well sucked also. Bobby Brown and his entourage and the Beastie Boys were two of the more arrogant, disruptive to other guests, and filthy crews we had to deal with that never tipped.
52450
Post by: gunslingerpro
So what, like another two weeks before she gets a reality show right?
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
probably on The "Learning" Channel (TLC... really.. what is so fething educational about a fat tub of woman and her bratty kid who needs to be slapped)
121
Post by: Relapse
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
probably on The "Learning" Channel (TLC... really.. what is so fething educational about a fat tub of woman and her bratty kid who needs to be slapped)
You learn not to watch that channel. 
12313
Post by: Ouze
Good update.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
"In light of the investigation and recent events, both Ms. Morales and Gallop Asian Bistro have made a joint decision that Ms. Morales will no longer continue her employment at our restaurant," said the Facebook post, which did not specify the conditions under which she left. "We wish her well in the future.”
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
"You're fired but we're gonna make it sound good for the media"
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Why would they do that?
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Because if they make themselves sound anti-gay, that could potentially affect their business. And really, they can say something that is very true, yet certain people will still see it as a slight to [insert group here], and take offense and no longer eat there.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Saying they sacked the woman because she lied and defrauded people is "anti-gay"?
If "certain people" would "take offence", will they not do so when she leaves by "mutual consent"?
Less then 10% of people are gay. Would it seriously adversely affect the company's business to "make themselves sound" anti-gay?
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Yes, if they appeared anti gay it would, especially in certain cities. They woud upset ALOT more people
52450
Post by: gunslingerpro
Kilkrazy wrote: Less then 10% of people are gay. Would it seriously adversely affect the company's business to "make themselves sound" anti-gay?
Just because only 10% of the population is homosexual does not mean that a substantial portion of the other 90% doesn't support gay rights/causes/equality.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Kilkrazy wrote:Less then 10% of people are gay. Would it seriously adversely affect the company's business to "make themselves sound" anti-gay?
it's been problematic elsewhere; reason enough not to court further controversy needlessly.
37231
Post by: d-usa
With labor and privacy laws they might also just be trying to let people know that she was fired, but without saying anything that might get them sued by her in the future. Don't know about that specific state, but it might be a consideration.
|
|
