Once mainly the province of restaurants, bars, and a few other service industries, tipping has become a nearly ubiquitous part of commerce in the United States. It is easy to forget, then, that some people effectively live on those tips.
For Massachusetts’ restaurant and tavern workers, tips can make the difference between a comfortable wage and bare subsistence. That is because those workers are paid less than minimum wage by their employers — $6.75 per hour in Massachusetts. And while state law requires employers to make up the difference if an employee’s earnings, tips included, fall short of the state minimum wage of $15 per hour — that often doesn’t happen, for reasons both nefarious and bureaucratic.
As a result, all it takes is an off week or two in business, a run of less than generous diners, or an unscrupulous boss who withholds tips to leave a worker scrambling to pay for rent and food on their subminimum wage earnings.
For these reasons, a national movement has emerged to end the two-tiered wage system. Such laws have been enacted in seven states and several major cities, including California, Montana, Nevada, and Washington, D.C. This November the idea is also on the ballot in Massachusetts as Question 5.
The Boston Globe editorial board endorses a yes vote on this measure on the grounds that it will provide greater economic stability for tens of thousands of tipped workers, many of them single parents, immigrants, or young people struggling to gain a foothold in society. It would also simplify an arcane pay system for tipped workers, potentially encourage more workers to remain in their jobs — a benefit to employers — and reduce harassment of female workers who often endure the bullying or sexual advances of customers in order to receive tips.
Under the measure, the two-tiered system for tipped workers would be phased out over five years, ending in 2029, when employers would be required to pay all their tipped workers the full state minimum wage. Those workers — about 80,000 in the restaurant industry and as many as 160,000 more in other service industries — could still receive tips as they do now. Employers would also be allowed — but not required — to create tip pools that could be shared among other nonmanagement workers, such as dishwashers or line cooks.
Opponents of the measure, led by the restaurant industry, raise reasonable concerns. First and foremost, they warn that the higher costs entailed in paying all servers, bartenders, and other “front of the house” workers the full minimum wage would force restaurants to raise prices and perhaps push some into bankruptcy. Larger or fancier restaurants might succeed with higher prices, but smaller or more rural enterprises with narrow profit margins would be hurt deepest, they contend.
“If the steak is $80 now, customers will probably not consider it a huge difference if it’s $85,” said Doug Bacon, a restaurant owner who began his career as a server and is now helping lead the effort to defeat Question 5. “But in my restaurants, the cheeseburger that costs $15 or $16, if it goes up to $22 or $23, they will choose alternatives.”
The industry also asserts that surveys of workers show that most of them want to keep the current two-tiered system because it offers the potential for wages well above minimum wage — a powerful incentive that owners want to preserve as well.
Clearly the current system can work well for servers at healthy, more upscale restaurants where tipping is routinely good. But for a larger number of workers, tips are less dependable. And for some, so are their employers, who might use technical loopholes in the law to shortchange them, as a 2014 investigation by the Globe editorial board found. Those workers would benefit from passing Question 5.
There are also reasons to believe that other issues raised by opponents could be overcome. One Fair Wage, a national group that is pushing to end the tipped minimum wage, says there is little evidence that such laws lead to widespread restaurant closures — in fact, they say, California has seen stronger growth in its small restaurant sector than Massachusetts in the past year. Moreover, the five-year period for phasing in the law would give restaurant owners time to adjust their business practices to accommodate the rising wage without jarring price increases.
Many servers worry that customers will tip less if they know workers are earning a higher minimum wage. But studies show that while tipping might decline in places that ended the two-tier system, on balance people continue to tip — and often generously. The excuse of a higher minimum wage, that is, did not stop people from rewarding good service.
The less obvious benefit of the measure would be greater predictability in wages for workers. Estefania Galvis, a former server who is now a Massachusetts organizer for One Fair Wage, says that she had to change jobs to find an employer who didn’t shortchange her. When she ultimately found work at a restaurant that paid her the state minimum wage automatically — as Question 5 would require all restaurants to do — the predictability of her weekly paycheck made all the difference in the world.
“I work 30 hours; 30 times $15: That’s going to be what I’m going to get in my paycheck, and then everything else is going to be on top of it,” she told the editorial board. “And that helped me be able to pay my bills and my rent — and build upon that.”
That seems an outcome worth voting for.
Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us @GlobeOpinion.