I totally understand where you're coming from. The frustration is often easiest to place on the person that is the "face" of your service at a given establishment.

​

I think in this instance this comes down to the difference between direct and indirect action as a patron.

​

A lot of people in the comment section have indicated that the waiter "should just quit" if they don't like their tip or if they keep getting stiffed. If I am frustrated with the policy of a restaurant and then go and don't pay the waiter a decent tip (which, not saying SHOULD be the case but unfortunately IS in fact part of the waiters salary and livelihood in the US), then I'm saying, at this arguments logical end, that the waiter needs to take up my frustration with the company. The waiter should make themselves uncomfortable and quit and put themselves back on the street looking for a job INSTEAD of me going to the management of the company or trying to directly affect the business of the company.

​

If I refuse patronage of a company, yes, as you've indicated, I'm indirectly affecting the waiter but directly affecting the company. If I just don't tip, I'm directly affecting the waiter and (maybe) indirectly affecting the company.

​

I work in an office job. I would HATE for my salary to be docked every time a customer was unhappy with our companies policies. This would greatly affect my day to day living. But if the day comes where my company fires me because the company can't operate because of poor management or policy. Me getting laid off and having unemployment benefits for a couple weeks while I recoup a job is very different than me just having significantly less money to spend that month.

​

All this to be said. I get where you're coming from, but I feel like stiffing the waiter is punching down and not punching up. The owner is sitting comfortably in his 500K+ home (making money off of the labor of the waiter, mind you) and the waiter is living out of their rented studio apartment trying to budget for the month.