Surely we aren’t the only ones experiencing “tipping fatigue,” and so we aren’t opposed to taking a hard look at modifying the legal and social parameters of this service-sector tradition whose long tradition belies some problematic factors for consumers and workers alike. This ballot measure, however, isn’t the wisest way to address this complex issue. The available data from other states that have eliminated the tip credit do show that servers tend to receive fewer tips but greater total compensation when such a policy is enacted. And it stands to reason that such a policy might mitigate the high turnover currently roiling the service industry as well as reduce the incentive and ability for employers to engage in the very real practice of wage theft, though there is less definitive data to support those two premises.
All that certainly calls for a close look at reforming wage laws for service sector employees — but that close look is best achieved by legislators at the state and federal level carefully studying the issue, not an up-or-down vote from a Bay State electorate bombarded by the special interests behind both sides of this question. The reality is that even the most ideal fix to the current paradigm will result in considerable disruption to the hospitality industry — something we do not and cannot take lightly here in the Berkshires. That does not mean this issue doesn’t warrant serious attention from lawmakers; it means that this haphazard approach via ballot referendum is not the right move at this juncture.
The Eagle editorial board endorses a “no” vote on Question 5.
See all of The Berkshire Eagle's thoughts regarding this years ballot questions here.