To justsaying....if TIP is To Insure Promptness, why do we do it at the end of the meal. If we're " insuring" something, shouldn't we do it before?
Just a couple points here, from a New Yorker who's relocating to Sebastopol:
1) Peter Lowell's is hands down my favorite restaurant in Sonoma -- it's one of my favorite restaurants anywhere! PL's embodies everything a local place should be; it's creative, exuberant, relaxed, true to its principles, and above all DELICIOUS. I have read gripes on SM about service, but in two dozen visits over the last 7 years I have never had anything but great service there. So I think that is truly a bad rap.
2) Maybe it's the years I've spent overseas where "service-compris" is standard, but to me an automatic service charge just makes sense. Tipping is an archaic practice that neither really communicates a larger message to management nor fairly compensates the supply chain that leads to that hot plate of deliciousness just placed before you. And it makes both waiters and patrons uncomfortable, by setting them up essentially as counterparties in a transaction, rather than people enjoying the miracle of a great restaurant. Let's face it, this model is outworn. There are plenty better ways for waiters to show they care and patrons to show they're happy than by this financial reward/punishment system.
3) Restaurant work -- at every level -- is HARD WORK. Competition is fierce for the best employees. Plus, shouldn't the people who bring you such goodness be fairly paid for that task?
Finally, Lowell, as everybody knows, is a passionate, committed, incredibly brilliant chef who is an asset to our community. I don't even want to contemplate Sebastopol without PL. We need to be supporting the local businesspeople that are bringing their hard work and passion every day.
Was just recently at the restaurant, my first time. I was a little underwhelmed. I did read about the 20% policy and it did not strike a positive chord for me. I still believe that a TIP is To Insure Promptness. WE did not really experience that.
As for the comments from DonDonSurvelo, do not worry about Lowell's. I noticed that they are already collecting the 9% tax on the "Service Charge". Hmmmm Not only are we required to pay a standard fee in lieu of the traditional tip, we are now taxed on it, whereas before tips were not a taxable commodity for the client. (Yes the servers and any kitchen staff that were receiving a portion are required to report it as income)
The result is a 25% (in my case) surcharge to the advertised prices. Not sure how that jives with the laws regarding advertising or labelling of prices. I would guarantee that even with the good intentions of paying the staff a living wage ($16 -$28 an hour given the hours and expense of living in the bay area is not a living wage) that none of us would buy gasoline (or groceries) that were labelled at $3.00 per gallon and after we filled up were billed $3.75
As the owner of Peter Lowell's Restaurant I am always interested to read comments on the changes we are making.
1st off I would like to acknowledge that we are not perfect. We have not always performed at as high a level as we would have liked, and are still improving today. Today, however, our service is far more consistent than any time in the past. We believe that we have the potential to provide excellent service to each and every customer that walks through the door. I humbly ask any former or current customer that has had an unpleasant experience to email me directly. I would like to invite you in for a meal on the house. I have no doubt that "keeping it real" is speaking the truth. Again, I humbly ask for a another chance. Every staff member on our current team has the utmost respect for the art of serving and comes to work each and every day hoping to curate excellent experiences for all our guests. email me at firstname.lastname@example.org and I will set you up!
As to the taxation... "dondonsurvelo" is correct. Much like every other business in the country, we will now be paying taxes on every dollar our employees take home as pay. No one likes paying taxes! That's the basic truth. We will however survive and prosper despite the extra tax burden.
Good tip or bad tip, the owners and management should be more connected to the client in the seat and know whether service and food are good or not. A good server will let management know if there is a problem at the table even if they are the cause of the problem.
One thing not mentioned in this article is the increased taxation the owners will pay. Right now the owners are required to report a minimum of 8% of a server's sales as income. Now with no tipping the employer will have to report 100% of the income of the server and will have to match the Federal, State, SS and Medicare taxes. Higher incomes mean more taxes for the employer. It won't put them out of business but it will cut into the bottom line and it is not something you can put off paying.
I've had some of the worst service ever at Peter Lowells. Now they can still make an excellent wage for ignoring you.
Pullman Kitchen in SR tried it at 17% and then stopped it because.....
The wine industry could clear up much of the water controversy by telling us how much water they use, groundwater and surface water. Claims that the industry is sustainable are made without supporting data or a clear definition of sustainable water use. The wine industry is a business run by the numbers. If they are using so little water, where are the hard numbers about acre feet pumped from the ground or the river? Each vineyard knows how long their pumps run, their capacity, how many emitters they have on their drip lines and how much water goes on the vines. That they are so reluctant to provide this information certainly gives the impression that the truth about where our water goes is being hidden from us. Concealing this information keeps a lid on a political uproar and keeps the value of vineyards high for potential investors who do not realize the critical water situation in Sonoma County.
Thank you for this excellent and informative article. While really painful to learn how seriously our rivers, environment, wildlife and lives are being depleted and destroyed, I am so appreciative for this in-depth coverage. This conversation is long overdue and I am hopeful that this is the beginning of a movement to stop this madness, hold our politicians accountable and bring regulation into an industry that is out of control. Thank you to Will Parrish, Neighbors to Preserve Rural Sonoma County, Wine Water Watch, Shepherd Bliss and everyone else who is working so tirelessly to educate, advocate and fight for authentically sustainable standards, practices, procedures and regulations for living, working and growing grapes in Sonoma County.
It's true that your statement was in response to my question concerning your views on the Water Board's emergency order in the Russian River tributaries, but you were positing a general view on the effectiveness of regulations. You repeat and defend that view here. So, I'm not sure what you mean when you say I “misquoted” you.
You also say I'm “throwing bombs” at wine-grape growers by writing this article. That's an interesting analogy, and I'm afraid reflects a viewpoint that sees criticism as a violent threat.
The main point of my article is to examine the history and context behind the outrage against the wine industry that surfaced at the State Water Board's five community meetings in July. Many of these residents perceive that winegrowers, winery owners, and their lawyers, politicians, and experts are setting the terms within which policy struggles are waged, leading (among other things) to continued degradation of fish habitat and unfair regulatory double-standards.
I didn't criticize you for working with winegrape growers, nor did I criticize Keith Horn. I did point out aspects of the role you and he are playing, though, in helping set the terms of said regulatory and policy struggles. If you believe in the role you are playing, as it seems you do, that's understandable. I invite you to defend your position, as you did here (and I believe I gave you space in the article to do that also). If you're proud of your work, then the fact that eight of the nine people on your board of directors (according to the most recent tax statement I looked at) are wine-grape growers shouldn't feel like a criticism.
Who told you SWMC would open soon? The same guy who's said it so many times in the past year? Doesn't sound like a very reliable source to me.
RE: Phyllis Schlafly She is a liar, delivering diatribes against girls and women who are JUST TRYING TO MAKE A LIVING BY WORKING, something Phyllis Has Never Done. She is buys The Other Party (you know, the vicious, manipulative, cheating, law-disregarding One) and works with them to wage the War on Women--example: 963 bills against women, families in just 3 months! She has refused to debate me as I tell her as we see her.
WHO could be so stupid as to deny this nation the 9% boost in GDP that Other nations had when they codified ERA-like wording AT THE MANDATE OF THE USA, which then refused the Equal Rights Amendment to ITS OWN LADIES AND GIRLS? Besides ERA Requires NO funding, unlike most legislation!
What patriot would be behind Stopping sex discrimination, male and female? Or against the democratic (small d) American principle of equal treatment for ALL?
Wouldn't denial of gender-equal treatment TO THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS be shameful??
Let's put Phyllis in her place by passing the ERA into US Constitution. Call your state and Congressional legislators to ask...AND WHAT IS YOUR POSITION ON CODIFYING GENDER-EQUAL TREATMENT in our Constitution, and putting women and girls IN THE Nation's contract with its People now?! Then email me at the address at page-bottom of our www,2PassERA.org ...while there, check out our ERA Rebuts (Schlafly's) Lies. Point-counterpoint. Knock your socks off. Also scroll down homepage until you see the pic of faculty and students turning their backs on Schlafly at her own Alma Mater. yikes!
Seems like you are building an affirmative action argument here. Racial discrimination has wronged black people for generations. Clearly. But, are we then to conclude that our attitude toward a group of rowdy women being loud and annoying others around them must be conditioned on their race? If they are black, then doing anything about their rowdy behavior must be racist? If they are white, then kick their asses off the train, no problem?
Frankly, I'd like someone in the media to talk to others who where in that train car. Were they upset that their costly special experience was being ruined by a rowdy group of women? Did the Wine Train offer to move them to another car where they could have a conversation and not have their experience dominated by loud and annoying people?
Are one class of people above reproach regardless of their behavior?
Will - You misquoted me. You asked me about the State Board's regulation of rural residential water uses and my answer was that regulations cause conflict which is very clearly occurring in Sonoma.
As for my testimony before the State Board on the Russian River frost regulation I presented information on the surface-groundwater interactions that dominate the Russian River system and make it very difficult to find one responsible party for fish standings that are the result of cumulative effects of numerous changes in the river system. When the National Marine Fisheries Service tried to blame a grower 1 mile upstream from the Felta Creek fish stranding they ended up dropping the enforcement action because they could not show one entity was the cause and concluded it was the cumulative effects of river channel incision from gravel mining and dams, low water and nearby and upstream diversions of water that caused the stranding. While you criticize me for working with growers it was my organization in response to the 2008 frost that wrote the grant for the $5.3 million in federal funds that helped to build all the off stream ponds in Mendocino and Sonoma counties that addressed the one stranding on the upper Russian river and the other stranding on Felta creek.
I choose to collaborate with farmers and ranchers to change their land and water management practices and build the projects that benefit salmon and trout. You chose to throw bombs at the people you blame for the scarcity of fish in the Russian River. I choose to work with the people I do not necessarily agree with but who will make the changes needed to benefit the fish. Regulations have very limited effect and collaborative programs are also needed. This fact is recognized by the regulators themselves which is why the National Marine Fisheries Service which oversee the recovery of salmon and trout and the Regional Water Quality Control Board which is responsible for water quality serve as the certifiers of farm and ranch lands under our Fish Friendly Farming program. Your criticism of Keith Horn and Constellation is without merit. Constellation’s lands in Sonoma County have been certified and recertified twice by the regulators demonstrating a very high level of environmental stewardship. You need to develop a broader view of what is needed to recover these fish. Laurel Marcus
DHnomad, I appreciate your comment. I agree that it's wrong to say in a strict sense that there are no meters on water diversions. What I should have written is that the state does not meter water use. Rather, water use is self-reported via statements of diversion and use (which only a minority of water rights holders in the Russian River watershed were actually providing as of 2013). By contrast, other states with riparian water rights systems use widespread meters and remote sensors to measure consumption. California is an anomaly in this regard, and the agribusiness lobby has been a major reason for that. The chairman of the state's Division of Water Rights, Thomas Howard, has publicly expressed frustration about his agency's inability to meter agricultural and rural water diversions, since it makes it extremely difficult if not impossible to measure water use -- or cut-backs in water use -- accurately. So, I think we're both partly right and regret that I didn't provide a more nuanced description of this issue.
Otherwise, it seems that you missed a lot of important aspects of my story. I didn't claim that the water diversions I saw are escaping the notice of authority. I noted in the piece that most of the pipes I encountered appear to conform to the legal requirements of California water rights system, quoted a Water Rights staffer who said the small dams and channel diversions appear to him to be lawful (this sentence got muddled, unfortunately, and does needs a correction), and referred to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's Fish and Game Code Section 1600 permitting of lake and streambed alterations.
My piece provided context regarding the outpouring of resentment residents expressed toward the wine industry at the State Water Board's July community meetings. The wine industry's opposition to regulation is a key part of that story, so I quoted Laurel Marcus and referred to Fish Friendly Farming in a section describing said opposition. Ms. Marcus has herself spoken publicly before the State Water Board and advocated against stricter regulation of the wine industry's frost protection pumping. Also, since I wanted to characterize Ms. Marcus' organization accurately, I noted that all of its directors are grape growers other than Ms. Marcus herself. I wasn't attacking her. Instead, I was presenting the role she and her organization have played vis-a-vis an important aspect of my story.
I have many points of contention with this article but one in particular must be made with enthusiasm. Pumping from surface water, legally, is absolutely metered and reported. Moreover, it's done in accordance with a Water Right, requires a DFW permit and Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement. Mr Parrish is not the only one with a kayak, to believe the infrastructure in the photo plaguing my FB feed is part of an unregulated, unmetered diversion and has somehow gone unnoticed by anyone with authority is beyond foolish!
I'm sure Mr Parrish is a good guy. I bet we'd get along quite well. I'm sure we share many common visions for this place. I'm a SC lifer and I've also been farming grapes for 14 years. I find his reporting to be biased and also short sighted. I know for a fact much of what he has reported here is false. But I'm not even going to use my full name. I'm not speaking on the record or representing my employer. It's not in my interest to open either of us up to the ridiculous kind of protest that would surely follow. It's of no benefit. While that may seem like the cowards way out I need only reference this poorly reported article. I know Laurel Marcus very well, I have known her for a decade now. I've worked closely on habitat restoration and management plans. I guarantee she had much more to say than Mr Parrish quoted here. He painted her organization as crooked and unfairly so.
It's a shame so many good people will eat this up as fact and me my colleagues will suffer for it when so many of us work so hard every day to earn a living without ruining the land we farm. To do otherwise would be quite foolish.
Time to remove all pumps along the creeks and rivers.
Absolute greed and damage to the river has occurred due to pumping for grapes.
Withdraw all grape pump stations now!
Not printed was the number of residential developments demanding water from wells located with thirty feet of Green Valley Creek.
It's time for responsible local growers who truly care about the long term viability of Sonoma County's wine industry to part ways with reactionaries like Tito Sasaki and others who still defend a status quo that has led us to this point of crisis.
Millennials won't buy wine that was paid for in fish blood.
They didn't pass the pharmacy test on Monday. Not sure where you got your information. Apparently it will be rescheduled soon.
Did you do any research besides what Hino fed to you?
Conflicts of interest are not "academic" discussions...
North Bay Bohemian
2016 Metro Newspapers. All rights reserved.
Website powered by Foundation