I'm not tipping a slack-jawed teen for no work. Let's fix our tip culture.
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Five surprising ways you're annoying restaurant staff
When we go out to eat, we're usually too excited about the food to think about the people working behind the scenes.
unbranded - Lifestyle
Food "tipping" has become an absolute circus, and I've had enough.
The practice should be a straightforward way to reward exceptional service. Now, it's a guilt-ridden tap dance where a rogue iPad demands a 25% premium for a slack-jawed teen handing you a muffin. The social contract has been shredded, and we're all left fumbling with our wallets while the person behind us in line judges our generosity for a transaction that once went untipped.
Tipping has become a source of national anxiety, a phenomenon known as "tipflation," and frankly, it's exhausting. If we don't draw some clear lines in the sand, we'll soon be tipping the self-checkout machine at the grocery.
Today, we draw those lines and free well-intentioned consciences across America.
The venerable Emily Post Institute, a longtime arbiter of American etiquette, offers guidelines applied in a world that no longer exists – or at least, one that didn't anticipate being asked to tip on a prepackaged sandwich you grab yourself. In the spirit of restoring some sanity, allow me to propose 10 reality-adjusted food tipping rules for 2025.
Ten rules for when to tip, and how much
1. The full-service sit-down meal ‒ 18-22%
This is where tipping tradition holds strong, and rightly so. If you're at a restaurant where a waiter or waitress takes your order, diligently attends to your table, and refills your drinks without you having to send up a flare, tip well.
I will never forget Carlos' excellent service at Arzu in Roanoke, Virginia, when I attended Washington and Lee University. He treated a couple of college kids like royalty, and my wife and I remember those dates fondly. I didn't have much money, but I tipped him like I did. Professionals who navigate multiple tables, remember the nuanced details of your order and make you feel special earn every penny of that tip.
2. The counter offensive ‒ 0%
Most dining experiences these days stand in stark contrast to the classic waited table. If you order at a counter, pick up your food from someone hollering a number, fill your own drink and bus your own table – congratulations, you've just provided your own service. Tip yourself accordingly.
The establishment is selling you a product. Asking for a 20-30% tip via a swiveling screen for this "privilege" is an affront to human dignity. The practice is a wage subsidy properly built into the price. If businesses can't charge that price, the food isn't good enough.
Opinion: Tourism is the next casualty in Trump's trade war. Our economy might not recover.
3. The hybrid hustle ‒ 5-10%
We should also be honest when establishments fall somewhere between waited tables and self-serve:
Order at counter, food delivered, tables bussed by staff ‒ 10%. You've placed your own order, but someone is bringing food to your table and cleaning up afterward. That's a service apart from what you'd get at home. They're doing part of the traditional waiter's job, so they should earn part of the tip.
You've placed your own order, but someone is bringing food to your table and cleaning up afterward. That's a service apart from what you'd get at home. They're doing part of the traditional waiter's job, so they should earn part of the tip. Order at counter, pick up food yourself, tables bussed by staff ‒ 5%. You're still doing most of the legwork, but at least you don't have to clear your own dishes. If the staff keeps the dining area and your table clean, a modest 5% tip is a fair acknowledgement.
Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store.
4. The buffet brigade ‒ 10%
At a buffet, you're largely self-sufficient in the food acquisition department. However, if someone is diligently refilling your iced tea, bringing extra napkins and clearing the leaning tower of used plates, they deserve a tip. Ten percent is a good benchmark for this attentiveness.
If you never see a soul after the initial drink order, don't feel bad adjusting the tip accordingly.
5. Coffee, cocktails and courtesy ‒ $1 minimum per drink, double it for effort
Coffee, beer, wine, liquor on the rocks: A dollar per drink is a solid minimum, especially if it's a straightforward pour or a quick brew.
A dollar per drink is a solid minimum, especially if it's a straightforward pour or a quick brew. Mixology, barista art: If your bartender is whipping up a concoction with tequila, tarantula leg, smoke and a story, she might be a witch. On the other hand, she might be a truly gifted professional. The coffee barista doesn't have to craft a swan in your latte foam. Skill deserves a double reward, unless she puts a hex on you.
If your bartender is whipping up a concoction with tequila, tarantula leg, smoke and a story, she might be a witch. On the other hand, she might be a truly gifted professional. The coffee barista doesn't have to craft a swan in your latte foam. Skill deserves a double reward, unless she puts a hex on you. Respect the minimum: Throwing coins, digital or otherwise, at staff just feels cheap and unappreciative. Don't do it. Yes, I know the percentages may be higher. Thankfully, I'm writing the rules.
Opinion: Stop asking me for tips. 'Tipflation' is out of control.
6. Take care of your people
This one's crucial. If you're on a first-name basis with the barista who knows your complicated coffee order by heart, the waiter who remembers your favorite table, or the bartender who starts your usual when you walk in – tip them well. Consistently. These are your people. They make your daily routines or weekly outings better. Fostering that relationship is worth every extra dollar.
7. Cash remains king
While cards are convenient, cash tips avoid credit card processing fees or complex tip-pooling arrangements where the distribution can be murky. Cash itself is a tangible sign of appreciation.
8. Delivery days ‒ $5 minimum with uplifts
This one is a little more complicated because the interaction with a delivery driver is usually brief. Drivers from third parties like DoorDash and Grubhub usually aren't responsible for accuracy of the order or the quality of the food. Use some common sense here. If you don't want to get out in the weather, tip more. If your order isn't smashed or spilled, tip more.
My suggestion is to tip the minimum and then supplement with cash when the order arrives. The notable caveat these days is that your generous front-end tip may ensure that your order is picked up quickly and at your front door. If you're eating in your sweatpants, splurge for the extra convenience and call it a win.
9. No SALT
Don't tip on state and local taxes (SALT). The government is literally charging you to eat. You should not pay someone else a percentage of that amount. For that matter, it's weird for the government to do that in the first place. Maybe we should become the great Americans we were meant to be and refuse to tax food and beverages so we can tip helpful people instead of the government.
10. Lemonade stand ‒ 100%+
On the rare occasion that you see children out with a lemonade stand, bake sale or other offering, the minimum tip is 100%. Not only should you seek out these opportunities, but our generosity shapes the future workforce. Always incentivize work. I ran around my neighborhood as a kid with a wagon to sell tomatoes I grew. My gracious neighbors tipped me unbelievably. I'd come home with a wad of cash and an empty wagon time and again. Those tips primed the pump for my entire professional life.
Be generous and incentivize great service. Reward hustle, especially in younger people who are just starting out. Fight the culinary pressure culture that says people are entitled to tips and don't need to earn them.
Let's reclaim some common sense in 2025. Our blood pressure (and our wallets) will thank us.
USA TODAY Network Tennessee columnist Cameron Smith is a Memphis-born, Brentwood-raised recovering political attorney raising four boys in Nolensville with his particularly patient wife, Justine. Direct outrage or agreement to smith.david.cameron@gmail.com or @DCameronSmith on Twitter. This column first appeared in the Tennessean.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
27 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Judge issues injunction preventing FTC from investigating watchdog Media Matters
A federal judge has issued an injunction preventing the Trump administration's Federal Trade Commission from investigating Media Matters for America, the liberal media watchdog group that had alleged the spread of hate speech on X since Elon Musk acquired the social media platform. U.S. District Court Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan ruled Friday that the FTC's probe of Media Matters, 'purportedly to investigate an advertiser boycott concerning social media platforms,' represents a clear violation of the group's freedom of speech. 'It should alarm all Americans when the government retaliates against individuals or organizations for engaging in constitutionally protected public debate,' Sooknanan wrote. Even before the FTC got involved, Media Matters has been defending itself against a lawsuit by Musk following the organization's November 2023 story that, following Musk's purchase of the social media site once known as Twitter, antisemitic posts and other offensive content were appearing next to advertisements there. Sooknanan said the injunction halting any FTC probe was merited because Media Matters is likely to succeed on its claim that the FTC is being used to retaliate against it for a critical article on a Trump supporter. 'The court's ruling demonstrates the importance of fighting over folding, which far too many are doing when confronted with intimidation from the Trump administration,' said Angelo Carusone, chairman and president of Media Matters. There was no immediate comment from an FTC spokesman.
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Bessent: Trump's Putin meeting like showing off ‘gun case' to ‘uncontrollable neighbor'
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Tuesday commended President Trump's summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska last week. 'Alaska was a show of force by President Trump. He invited President Putin to land that the Russians used to own. He displayed a huge amount of military hardware and then did a flyover,' Bessent said during a Tuesday morning appearance on CNBC's ' Squawk Box.' 'It was kind of like inviting your uncontrollable neighbor to your house and showing him your gun case,' he added. The Treasury Secretary said the immediate follow-up meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House on Monday signaled strong strides toward peace between Russia and Ukraine. 'We had a very good meeting with him in and his team in the Oval for about an hour and a half, and then we met with the European leaders who were an incredible group to have in the White House, all led by President Trump,' Bessent said. 'And yes, the culmination of that was a call with President Putin and my strong belief is that there will be a bilateral meeting between President Putin and President Zelensky,' he continued. 'And that's the only way to end this conflict, is to get the two sides talking.' The Kremlin's strikes on Ukraine have continued amid peace negotiations as Russian leaders have urged NATO not to deploy forces in Eastern Europe. On Monday, Russia's foreign ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said troop from NATO member nations 'could lead to an uncontrollable escalation of the conflict with unpredictable consequences.' Some world leaders have maintained that the Trump-Putin summit benefitted Moscow more than the U.S. Former British ambassador to Russia Laurie Bristow said the bilateral meeting 'produced nothing for Mr. Trump and gave Mr. Putin most of what he was looking for,' according to The Associated Press while Zelensky pegged the meeting as a photo-op. Still, Bessent said economic pressures on Moscow will force the over three-years long war to end. 'I think the sense is that both sides are ready for this terrible conflict to end, and one of the ways to make President Putin want it to end is on the economic side,' he told CNBC on Tuesday. 'The Russian economy has 20 percent plus inflation. Right now, it is a war economy. I think more than 25 percent of the GDP is coming from the military buildup. So, you know, it's a very imbalanced economy,' he continued.
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
The Donbas is a poisoned chalice that neither Russia nor Ukraine should want
Whichever side in the Russo-Ukrainian War wins the Donbas loses the war. That is the savage and largely unacknowledged irony at the core of the struggle over the Donbas — a territory that has recently come to occupy center stage in President Trump's post-summit thinking about how to end the war. Inasmuch as Russia has occupied most of the industrial basin known as the Donbas since its first invasion of Ukraine in 2014 — and is highly unlikely to be driven from that territory anytime soon — Russia has already lost the war, regardless of how long it continues and whether or not a U.S.-brokered ceasefire or peace becomes a reality. The Donbas was the industrial powerhouse of the Soviet Union for decades, but the region was already going into decline by the 1970s and 1980s. When Ukraine became independent in 1991, it inherited what had largely become a value-destroying territory. The Donbas fed the corrupt appetites of local politicians, oligarchs and organized crime. Its working-class residents claimed to have an exalted status belied by a wretched reality. As the economist Anders Aslund put it in 2015, 'The Donbas is a rust belt of old mines, steel mills and chemical factories. Almost all the coal mines and chemical factories are inactive … The rebels have blown up railway bridges, complicating bulk transportation.' In 2016, Aslund estimated that it would cost some $20 billion to revive the Donbas. By 2025, the estimated cost of Ukraine's reconstruction had zoomed upward to $524 billion, a 26-fold increase. Much of that money would need to go to the Donbas, where most of the heaviest fighting has taken place. A reasonable guesstimate of how much it would cost to rebuild just the Donbas today is $200 billion — nearly one-tenth of Russia's reported annual GDP and slightly more than Ukraine's. If the fighting continues indefinitely, that sum will surely double or even triple. Neither Ukraine nor Russia has that kind of cash. It is conceivable that Vladimir Putin's fascist regime could squeeze some money out of its subjects, but Ukraine's democracy could not. Fixing the Donbas would bankrupt either state, especially as the international community and business are unlikely to offer much in the way of assistance. But the burden of owning the Donbas isn't just financial. It is also demographic, environmental and political. According to Aslund, writing in 2016, 'Ukraine claims 1.2 million internally displaced persons, while Russia reports half a million refugees from the Donbas, and the United Nations estimates that some 100,000 have fled elsewhere. If these numbers are reasonably correct, 1.8 million have fled and 1.5 million remain. Apart from some 45,000 fighters, the remaining population largely consists of pensioners and the destitute.' This was the Donbas 10 years ago. We don't know how many people fled after the full-scale Russian invasion of 2022, but the numbers must be substantial. In addition, the armed militias that served in the phony Luhansk and Donetsk 'People's Republics' were thrown at the front and suffered enormous losses. Whatever its exact size, the Donbas's overwhelmingly aged and impoverished population can hardly be the basis of an economic boom. And how many refugees will return? How many people will move there from other parts of Ukraine or Russia if and when peace is attained? The questions are largely rhetorical, especially as the Donbas is an environmental hell hole. According to the Conflict and Environment Observatory, the fighting since 2014 has 'created a risk of environmental emergencies and will leave a lasting legacy of groundwater contamination from flooded coal mines.' Moreover, 'following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, hundreds of environmentally sensitive sites have been caught up in the conflict.' The Donbas will also become the site of endless political instability. If Ukraine inherits the territory, pro-Russian elements, in cahoots with the Russian security services, are sure to stage provocations, assassinate local officials, sabotage plants and so on. If Russia keeps the Donbas, Ukraine is sure to engage in equally subversive activities. How fair and free elections could take place under such conditions is anybody's guess. Despite these similarities, there is one fundamental difference. Putin's fascist regime will thrive on repression and violence; Ukraine's democracy won't. Indeed, while Putin can crush whatever opposition he encounters, Ukraine will have to mollify and integrate it — a test it failed before 2014 and one that it is unlikely to pass after years of war. Will failing this test make Ukraine more or less likely to overcome existing hurdles and join the European Union and NATO? Again, the question is rhetorical. The Donbas's transformation into a permanent source of instability will have at least two negative consequences for Putin. It will divert Russia's coercive resources from other, equally unstable parts of the Russian Federation. It will also encourage some non-Russian regions — the north Caucasus comes immediately to mind — to press for greater autonomy and less Kremlin oversight. France and the German states fought for centuries over Alsace-Lorraine and the Rhineland. That made some sense, since both regions were economically, politically and socially developed. Not so the Donbas. It is a black hole and will remain so for years to come. For better or for worse, neither Ukraine nor Russia can just turn their backs on the territory without violating their constitutions and courting mass demonstrations. Of course, as far as Putin is concerned, a constitution is just a piece of paper. Even so, to abandon the Donbas would be to admit defeat and experience political suicide. Ditto for Ukraine and its president, Volodymyr Zelensky. If winning means losing, does losing mean winning? Regardless of how they answer that question and what the terms of a possible peace deal might be, Ukrainians may take some consolation from the fact that, thanks to Putin's heady territorial ambitions, Russia will be stuck with that black hole for years to come. Indeed, Russia itself will progressively come to resemble the Donbas. That could be Ukraine's greatest victory. Alexander J. Motyl is a professor of political science at Rutgers University-Newark. A specialist on Ukraine, Russia and the USSR, and on nationalism, revolutions, empires and theory, he is the author of 10 books of nonfiction, as well as ' Imperial Ends: The Decay, Collapse, and Revival of Empires' and ' Why Empires Reemerge: Imperial Collapse and Imperial Revival in Comparative Perspective.'
