0,99 €
"The Itching Palm: A Study of the Habit of Tipping in America" by William R. Scott delves into the economic, ethical, and psychological aspects of tipping in the United States. Scott critiques tipping as a modern form of servility that contradicts democratic values, highlighting its widespread practice and economic implications. The book explores the origins of tipping, its impact on society, and advocates for a reevaluation of this custom. Through historical references and compelling arguments, Scott challenges the moral and societal implications of tipping, calling for a shift towards fair compensation and equality in service industries.
Das E-Book können Sie in Legimi-Apps oder einer beliebigen App lesen, die das folgende Format unterstützen:
Seitenzahl: 141
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2026
William R. Scott
The Itching Palm
A Study of the Habit of Tipping in America
Dieses ebook wurde erstellt bei
Inhaltsverzeichnis
Titel
I FLUNKYISM IN AMERICA
II ON PERSONAL LIBERTY
III BARBARY PIRATES
IV PERSONNEL AND DISTRIBUTION
V THE ECONOMICS OF TIPPING
VI THE ETHICS OF TIPPING
VII THE PSYCHOLOGY OF TIPPING
VIII THE LITERATURE OF TIPPING
IX TIPPING AND THE STAGE
X THE EMPLOYEE VIEWPOINT
XI THE EMPLOYER VIEWPOINT
XII ONE STEP FORWARD
XIII THE SLEEPING-CAR PHASE
XIV THE GOVERNMENT AND TIPPING
XV LAWS AGAINST TIPPING
XVI SAMUEL GOMPERS ON TIPPING
XVII THE WAY OUT
Impressum neobooks
The Itching Palm
A Study of the Habit of Tipping in America
William R. Scott
"Oliver Cromwell struck a mortal blow at the universal heart of Flunkyism," wrote Carlyle of the execution of Charles I.
Yet, Flunkyism is not dead!
In the United States alone more than 5,000,000 persons derive their incomes, in whole or in part, from "tips," or gratuities. They have the moral malady denominated The Itching Palm.
Tipping is the modern form of Flunkyism. Flunkyism may be defined as a willingness to be servile for a consideration. It is democracy's deadly foe. The two ideas cannot live together except in a false peace. The tendency always is for one to sap the vitality of the other.
The full significance of the foregoing figures is realized in the further knowledge that these 5,000,000 persons with itching palms are fully 10 per cent of our entire industrial population; for the number of persons engaged in gainful occupations in this country is less than 50,000,000.
Whether this constitutes a problem for moralists, economists and statesmen depends upon the ethical appraisement of tipping. If tipping is moral, the interest is reduced to the economic phase—whether the remuneration thus given is normal or abnormal. If tipping is immoral, the fact that 5,000,000 Americans practice it constitutes a problem of first rate importance.
Accurate statistics are not obtainable, but conservative estimates place the amount of money given in one year by the American people in tips, or gratuities, at a figure somewhere between $200,000,000 and $500,000,000!
Now we have the full statement of the case against tipping—five million persons receiving in excess of two hundred millions of dollars for—what?
It will be interesting to examine the ethics, economics and psychology of tipping to determine whether the American people receive a value for this expenditure.
The Itching Palm is a moral disease. It is as old as the passion of greed in the human mind. Milton was thinking of it when he exclaimed:
"Help us to save free conscience from the paw,Of hireling wolves whose gospel is their maw."
Although it had only a feeble lodgment in the minds of the Puritans, because their minds were in the travail that gave birth to democracy, enough remained to perpetuate the disease. In Europe, under monarchical ideals, a person could accept a tip without feeling the acute loss of self-respect that attends the practice in America, under democratic ideals. For tipping is essentially an aristocratic custom.
TIPPING UN-AMERICAN
If it seems astounding that this aristocratic practice should reach such stupendous proportions in a republic, we must remember that the same republic allowed slavery to reach stupendous proportions.
IF TIPPING IS UN-AMERICAN, SOME DAY, SOMEHOW, IT WILL BE UPROOTED LIKE AFRICAN SLAVERY
Apparently the American conscience is dormant upon this issue. But this is more apparent than real. The people are stirring vaguely and uneasily over the ethics of the custom. Six State Legislatures reflected the dawning of a new conscience by considering in their 1915 sessions bills relating to tipping. They were Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and South Carolina.
The geographical distribution of these States is significant. It is proof that the opposition to the practice is not isolated, not sectional, but national. North, Central, South, the verdict was registered that tipping is wrong. The South, former home of slavery, might be supposed to be favorable to this aristocratic custom. On the contrary the most vigorous opposition to it is found there. Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, and South Carolina simultaneously had laws against tipping—with the usual contests in the courts on their constitutionality.
The Negro was servile by law and inheritance. The modern tip-taker voluntarily assumes, in a republic where he is actually and theoretically equal to all other citizens, a servile attitude for a fee. While the form of servitude is different, the slavery is none the less real in the case of the tip-taker.
Strangely enough, bills to prohibit tipping often have been vetoed by Governors—notably in Wisconsin—on the ground that they curtailed personal liberty. That is to say, a bill which removed the chains of social slavery from the serving classes was declared to be an abridgment of liberty! "Oh, Liberty, how many crimes are committed in thy name!"
The Legislature in Wisconsin almost re-passed the bill over the Governor's veto. In Tennessee and Kentucky bills have been vetoed for the same given reason, though Tennessee in 1916 finally had such a law in force. In Illinois, the law was framed primarily with the object of preventing the leasing of privileges to collect tips in hotels and other public places, and not against the individual giver or taker of tips.
SHORT-LIVED LAWS
The courts have negatived such laws on much the same grounds, so that anti-tipping laws thus far have been, generally, short-lived. The reason is, of course, that popular sentiment has not been behind the laws in an extent sufficient to give them power. Judges and executives simply have yielded to their own class impulses, and the pressure from organized interests, to suppress the legislation. When the public conscience finds itself and becomes organized and articulate, they will have no difficulty in finding grounds for declaring regulatory laws constitutional. The history of the prohibition of the liquor business is a parallel.
PERSONAL LIBERTY
Personal liberty is a phrase that is being redefined in America in every decade. In its broadest sense it is interpreted to mean that a man has the right to go to perdition if he so elects without neighbors or the government taking note or interfering.
Anti-liquor laws in the early days of the temperance movement fared badly from this interpretation, just as anti-tipping laws fare to-day. But as public sentiment crystallized, and judges and executives began to feel the pressure at the polls, a new conception of personal liberty developed. In its present accepted sense, as regards liquor, it is interpreted to mean that no citizen may act or live in a way that is detrimental to himself, his neighbor or his government, and his privilege to drink liquor is abridged or abolished at will.
The right to give tips is not inalienable. It is not grounded on personal liberty. If the public conscience reaches the conviction that tipping is detrimental to democracy, that it destroys that fineness of self-respect requisite in a republic, the right will be abridged or withdrawn.
The American people became fully aroused on one occasion to the iniquity of tipping—on an international scale.
In 1801 President Jefferson decided that the United States could tolerate no longer the system of tribute enforced by the Barbary States along the shores of the Mediterranean.
Before our action, no European government had made more than fitful, ineffectual attempts to break up a practice at once humiliating to national honor and disastrous to national commerce. Candor requires the admission that we, too, submitted for years to this system of paying tribute to Barbary pirates for an unmolested passage of our ships, but the significant fact is that American manhood did finally and successfully revolt against the practice.
By 1805 our naval forces had brought the pirates to their knees and all Europe breathed grateful sighs of relief. Even the Pope commended the American achievement. The practice was contrary to every dictate of self-respect.
TRIBUTE
These pirates of Algiers, Tunis, Morocco and Tripoli did not pretend to have any other right behind their demands for tribute than the right they could enforce with cutlass and cannon—a right ferociously employed. It was not robbery in the ordinary sense of the word. They demanded a fee based on the value of the cargo for the privilege of sailing in the Mediterranean, and this being paid, the ship could proceed to its destination. Ship-owners soon began to figure tribute as a fixed expense of navigation, like insurance, and passed the added cost along to the ultimate consumer.
This practice of paying tribute was a system of international tipping. The Barbary pirates granted immunity to those who obeyed the custom, but made it decidedly warm and expensive for those who dared to protest against it—just as do our modern pirates in hotels, sleeping cars, restaurants, barber shops and elsewhere.
If a ship refused to pay tribute it was sunk, and the sailors went to slavery in the desert, or to death by fearful torture. President Jefferson could not see any basis of right in the position of the Barbary States that the Mediterranean was their private lake through which ships could not pass without paying toll. He sent Decatur to register our protest.
With the Pinckney slogan: "MILLIONS FOR DEFENSE—NOT ONE CENT FOR TRIBUTE!" the American naval forces made good our position. The tips that skippers of our nation had been paying to the pirates were saved and the custom soon was abandoned by other nations.
To-day, the old battle cry is reversed to read: "Millions for tribute—not one cent for defense!"
It is certain that a greater tribute is paid in one week in the United States in the form of tips, than our merchantmen paid during the whole period that they knuckled to the Barbary pirates.
In New York City alone more than $100,000 a day is paid in gratuities to waiters, hotel employes, chauffeurs, barbers and allied classes. But New York has reached a subserviency to the tipping custom that is amazing in a democratic country.
This vast tribute is paid for not more real service than the Barbary pirates rendered to those from whom they exacted tribute. It is given to workers who are paid by their employers to perform the services enjoyed by the public. If the Barbary pirates could see the ease with which a princely tribute is exacted from a docile public by the tip-takers, they would yearn to be reincarnated as waiters in America—the Land of the Fee!
The Itching Palm is not limited to the serving classes. It is found among public officials, where it is particularized as grafting, and it is found among store buyers, purchasing agents, traveling salesmen and the like, and takes the form of splitting commissions. There are varied manifestations of the disease, but whether the amount of the gratuity is ten cents to a waiter or $10,000 to a captain of police, the practice is the same.
This is a partial list of those affected:
Baggagemen
Barbers
Bartenders
Bath attendants
Bellboys
Bootblacks
Butlers
Cab drivers
Chauffeurs
Charwomen
Coachmen
Cooks
Door men
Elevator men
Garbage men
Guides
Hatboys
Housekeepers
Janitors
Maids
Manicurists
Messengers
Mail carriers
Pullman porters
Rubbish collectors
Steamship stewards
Theater attendants
Waiters
The foregoing list is not offered as a complete roster of those who regularly or occasionally receive tips. Nearly every one can think of additions, and at Christmas the list is extended to include money gifts to policemen, delivery men and numerous others.
THE TIP-TAKING CLASSES
At the last Census, in 1910, there were 38,167,336 persons in the United States, out of a total population of ninety-odd millions, who were engaged in gainful occupations, that is, who worked for specified wages or salaries. Of this number, 3,772,174 persons were engaged in domestic or personal service, or practically ten per cent. of the industrial population.
This means that in round numbers 4,000,000 Americans of both sexes and all ages were engaged in the lines of work specified in the foregoing list, with certain additions as mentioned. These are the citizens who profit by the tipping practice.
Since 1910 the growth in population to one hundred millions, and the steadily widening spread of the tipping practice will increase the beneficiaries of tipping to 5,000,000. An idea of the relative distribution of the total may be obtained from the statistics of fifty leading cities. The numbers represent the tip-taking classes in each city.
CITY
NUMBER
CITY
NUMBER
Albany
8,000
Minneapolis
19,000
Atlanta
23,000
Nashville
15,000
Baltimore
48,000
New Haven
9,000
Birmingham
16,000
New Orleans
37,000
Boston
61,000
New York
400,000
Bridgeport
5,200
Newark
17,000
Buffalo
25,000
Oakland
11,000
Cambridge
7,500
Omaha
10,000
Chicago
135,000
Paterson
5,000
Cincinnati
30,000
Philadelphia
105,000
Cleveland
31,000
Pittsburgh
41,000
Columbus
14,000
Portland
17,000
Dayton
6,500
Providence
14,000
Denver
17,000
Richmond
15,000
Detroit
26,000
Rochester
13,000
Fall River
4,000
St. Louis
56,000
Grand Rapids
5,500
St. Paul
16,000
Indianapolis
19,000
San Francisco
44,000
Jersey City
14,000
Scranton
6,000
Kansas City
24,000
Seattle
19,000
Los Angeles
26,000
Spokane
7,000
Lowell
5,500
Syracuse
9,000
Louisville
23,000
Toledo
9,500
Memphis
19,000
Washington
43,000
Milwaukee
22,000
Worcester
9,000
In all other cities, towns and hamlets there are proportionate quotas to bring the grand total to 5,000,000. Any estimate of the daily tipping tribute for the whole country necessarily is only an approximation, but $600,000 is a conservative figure. At this rate the annual tribute is around $220,000,000.
IN NEW YORK ALONE
Taking New York with its 400,000 persons who profit from tipping, the leading classes of beneficiaries are as follows:
Barbers
20,000
Bartenders
12,000
Bellboys
2,500
Bootblacks
3,500
Chauffeurs
12,000
Janitors
25,000
Manicurists
4,500
Messengers
1,500
Porters
15,000
Waiters
35,000
The tipping to these and other classes varies both in amount and regularity. Waiters and manicurists in the better-class places receive no pay from their employers and depend entirely upon tips for their compensation. Barbers and chauffeurs are classes which receive wages and supplement them with tips. Sometimes the employer will pay wages and require that all tips be turned in to the house.
It is a common feature of the "Help Wanted" columns to state that the job is desirable to the workers because of "good tips." Thus the employers are fully alert to the economic advantage of tipping, and wherever it is practicable they throw upon their patrons the entire cost of servant hire.
The extent to which employers are exploiting the public is realized vaguely, if at all. The vein of generosity and the fear of violating a social convention can be worked profitably, and they are in league with their employees to make it assay the maximum amount to the patron.
In a restaurant where the employer has thus shifted the cost of waiter hire to the shoulders of the public, the patron who conscientiously objects to tipping has not the slightest chance in the world of a square deal in competition with the patron who pays tribute, although he pays as much for the food.
A waiter, knowing that his compensation depends upon what he can work out of his patron, employs every art to stimulate the tipping propensity, from subtle flattery to out-right bull-dozing. He weaves a spell of obligation around a patron as tangible, if invisible, as the web a spider weaves around a fly. He plays as consciously upon the patron's fear of social usage as the musician in the alcove plays upon his violin.
This is a particularly bad ethical and economic situation from any viewpoint. The patron, getting only one service, pays two persons for it—the employer and the employee. The payment to the employer is fixed, but to the employee it is dependent upon the whim of the patron. To make this situation normal, the patron should pay only once, and this should cover both the cost of the food and the services of the waiter. Theoretically this is the present idea under the common law, but actually the patron is required, through fear of well-defined penalties, to pay twice.
Naturally, if the $200,000,000 or more annually given to those serving the public should be withdrawn suddenly, employers would face the necessity of a radical readjustment of wage systems. In many lines wages would be increased to a normal basis, either at the expense of the employer's profits, or through additional charges to patrons. Before going further into the employer phase of the practice, the economics of tipping in individual instances will be an interesting study.
