Unveiling the Anti-Tipping Movement: Is It a Color Revolution?
A Small Dive Into The Push to Eliminate Tipping
In 2004, Ukraine was in the midst of a vast regime change. The highly charged Presidential election between incumbent-backed candidate Viktor Yanukovych and the challenger, former prime minister Viktor Yushchenko, created chaos and division in the country. Both men claimed victory following a chain of events now described as the “Orange Revolution” of Ukraine.
The Orange Revolution is an example of a “color revolution.”
Color revolutions are described as anti-regime efforts that use collective action across groups to transfer resources and power to a new governing body. These movements have successfully changed the political faces of power in post-communist countries in Central Asia and Eastern Europe following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The most notable examples of color revolutions began to surface in Siberia in 2000 with what was called the Bulldozer Revolution. Following this effort, we see the Rose Revolution in Georgia in 2003, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine in 2004, and the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan in 2005.
Color revolutions follow a pattern of criteria intended to create distrust, create a narrative of changing the status quo, and require a change in thinking within a large group of people. The floated narrative is often centered around the idea that a government is corrupt and needs to be changed for the sake of democracy or economic development.
It is curious to see that the framework of what a color revolution is and does fits the bill when scrutinizing the ever-growing war on the restaurant industry.
Demonizing Compensation Models
There have always been factions of people who are against tipping. It has been touted that the post-civil war reformation movements came out against tipping even back then. Several contemporary economists and historians have picked up the debate and gone back and forth regarding the invention of tipping and the service industry in general. 2022 saw the eruption of this controversy between historical economist Phil Magness and his counter to the launched narrative from Nikole Hannah Jones, the author of the 1619 project, who claims that tips are rooted in slavery. Jones's statements were not original; they were nothing more than her repeating the narrative first crafted by Saru Jayaraman and the Berkeley Labor Center.
Intro To The Wage Narrative
The attack on the World Trade Center in 2001 brought us Restaurant Opportunities Center (ROC) and big labor dynamo Saru Jayaraman.
From the very beginning of her career, Jayaraman has published papers, articles, and books demonizing tipping culture. A key focus for ROC and its rebranded iteration, One Fair Wage, is advocating for wage increases for tipped workers in the service industry. With the help of public sector labor groups like the SEIU and Unite Here and allies like Kshama Sawant, the “Fight For $15” was born.
The efforts of the minimum wage movements started years before. For such an endeavor to be successful, a change in the service industry status quo needed to happen. Workers making tips made enough money to live fairly comfortably, and that needed to change. The first step in such a feat is to create a revolution against the industry itself. Creating a narrative is one of the first steps in any color revolution. Saru Jayaraman created ROC to do just that.
Jayaraman’s first book, Behind The Kitchen Door, is touted as an expose of the service industry's cruelties, essentially painting workers as victims of low wages. Subsequently, Jayaraman released article after article, paper after paper, and more books, all demonizing the service industry. Out of the blue, ROC and Jayaraman were propped up as the voice of the service industry and its workers despite no one in the industry having heard of her.
NPR would blast her book, and she was frequently a guest on “Real Time” with Bill Maher, conflating tipping with slavery. She focused her animosity on tip credits, calling them a sub-minimum wage and claiming tipped workers needed a “living wage,” dismissing tipping culture and the income it provides.
The Tip Credit Target
When it comes to tipped workers in the full-service restaurant industry, the tip credit can be considered less of a wage and more of a tool to protect the tipping culture that keeps our wages competitive. Understanding that tipping has a built-in cost-of-living increase is key to acknowledging why tipped compensation models are more ideal than a flat hourly wage and why labor unions would love to see tipping disappear.
There are several reasons why a tip credit is attractive to employers. In addition to tax breaks the employer may receive, those who employ a tip credit can focus on building wages for their non-tipped employees. They can do this by directing the bulk of their labor costs to acquire the most talented and capable kitchen staff. Recruiting the back-of-house talent needed to run a successful restaurant is critical to sustainability and competitiveness.
Because of these simple economic principles, tipping and, specifically, tip credits are the target for labor-oriented special interest groups that rely on collective bargaining for low-wage workers as their business model. The service industry is the second largest employer in the United States after the Federal Government. With much of American industry now overseas or even turning to app platform-based work, unions are having a tough time with recruitment. They have turned their sites to the service industry to capture this large group of workers and bring them under the umbrella of unionization.
Creating a narrative that tip credits are “slave wages” and breaking down tipping culture by demonizing it, public sector unions hope to shift the labor into flat wages where collective bargaining agreements will be needed to keep up with the cost of living.
From Coast To Coast
Across the country, it became apparent to many of us fighting for our livelihoods and the service industry that a narrative was being adhered to. As far as we could tell, the anti-tipping narrative began with Jayaraman and ROC and was parrotted by politicians from city councils to the federal government. The one thing all of them had in common was that 100% of them were supported and championed by public sector unions.
Then there were the “workers,” many of whom were not workers but activists paid by the public sector unions to attend council hearings regarding wages and scheduling. Their job was to be loud, wear preprinted T-shirts, wave signs, and perpetuate the demonization of the service industry, its employers, and most of all, how tipped workers were paid. The FSWA witnessed these actors from Seattle and Olympia to Washington D.C.
Some service industry leaders grabbed onto the anti-tipping scheme because of their prejudice against tipping. Since the 1990s, restauranteur Danny Meyer has spoken out against tipping. In a podcast, Meyer called tipping a hoax. He followed Jayaraman’s lead and eliminated tipping in his restaurant group in 2016. He then used his influence to recruit more restauranteurs into the no-tipping business model, with David Chang of Momofuku and other prominent New York culinary names following suit.
This stunt cost Meyer and his cohorts their legacy staff, with many quitting when the tip model was changed. In 2020, Meyer and Chang returned to traditional tipping models to “remain competitive.”
The End Goal
ROC/OFW, in tandem with public sector unions, continues to carry on with the fictive description of tipped workers being kin to slaves and their employers, the slave masters. Building distrust within the industry between the workers and the employers is critical to getting this large group of laborers to drop the very thing(traditional tipping model) that keeps them free from being beholden to the unions.
This is the transfer of power that a color revolution seeks. The unions have claimed that the service industry is corrupt and needs to be changed for the economic equity of its workers. That new economic reality can only be realized if the unions have control of the industry. We must understand that the anti-tipping movement came from a think tank whose purpose is to pave the way for forced unionization of our industry. To safeguard our tip credits and preserve our tipping culture, thereby ensuring the longevity of the service sector, we must resist the influence of figures like Jayaraman and other activists. Instead, we should amplify the voices of those whose values prioritize fortifying and enhancing our industry, making it an exemplary workplace for all.
Understanding that we are in the middle of our own color revolution may give us the insight and strength to take the action needed to keep our industry strong and free from those who do not have our best interests at heart.