I have to agree with guelo. The services you describe are unadvertised for a reason. You're effectively asking someone from a lower class to possibly break the law (by getting paid under the table, and presumably not reporting the additional income) and possibly get into trouble with their employer because they want your extra money. If that's not a class issue, what is?
Every scenario he described involves people who already make money from tips. If they underreport their tips, that's their own issue. I've read experimental reports from people attempting to bypass social conventions by means of $20 bills, and it only works when the bribee's job and legal status are not on the line.
I'm guessing that bypassing social conventions is where most of the outrage comes from. Queueing etiquette is something sacred; defectors face strong social punishment. Seems wrong to have someone taking something that's yours--your place in line--simply by having more money.
But queueing is just a non-monetary rationing system for a slightly scarce resource that most people don't care enough to pay for. It'd be fairer if everyone waiting participated in an auction for places in line, and the proceeds were distributed evenly, but unless you care enough to set that system up I think the moral outrage against people who buy the front position directly from the coordinator(s) of the queue is misplaced.
To cite one example, the Alton Towers theme park in the UK has a ticketing system that allows you to pay more for "fast track" tickets.
Fast track tickets allow you to join a separate queue. The number of fast track tickets available are limited so the queues remain very short, and actual boarding of each ride is controlled so it is never dominated by fast track ticket holders.
The fast track ticket prices vary depending on which rides they are usable on, and how many times you can re-use them.
The system seems to work very well. Those who assign a high value to getting on every ride can opt to pay the extra for a more intense day. Those who are happy with the slow pace of a day out with some queueing can still afford the regular priced tickets.
There doesn't seem to be any moral or social stigma attached to those using the fast track system, but I think part of the reason is that it is perceived as fair, and everyone has the option to participate if they choose.
"it is perceived as fair, and everyone has the option to participate if they choose."
But why doesn't everyone choose to do so? After all, it would mean a shorter wait, and who wouldn't want that?
Could it be that not everyone can afford to use the system? Is this really fair? And how do you know that it's "perceived as fair"? By whom? How many people who are waiting in the slow line have you surveyed?
"But why doesn't everyone choose to do so? After all, it would mean a shorter wait, and who wouldn't want that?"
I see it as a trade off.
Lets say you are in a queue that is 2 hours long. You are offered the opportunity to half your queue time for £5, and you can pay multiple times to repeatedly half your queuing time as many times as you want. How many times will you pay the £5 for an ever decreasing return?
There is a trade off here between queueing time and cost. Regardless of your available wealth you won't repeat the payment indefinitely. Internally you assign a value to your lost time, and you trade that against the value of the payment you are willing to make.
The balancing point of the trade off depends on your personal circumstances, availability of monetary wealth and your desired goals.
The fast track system builds the same trade off. The more you are willing to pay the more reduction in wait times you can get, but the higher up the scale you go, the smaller the gain becomes, and there are a range of available ticket types that target different goals (Multiple use, certain rides only, single use, booked time slots, etc). Each user can trade off money against queue time to maximise their goals.
It's fair because all of the available options are clearly documented and made available to everyone indiscriminately. The choice is yours to trade money for time.
It's also fair because those who don't assign high value to the trade off are protected in some way. Fast track tickets are limited in quantity, so most people have to queue, there is not a situation where 10% get stuck waiting exponentially longer. 90% have the same queue, and only the 10% who assign the highest value to the trade off can receive the benefits.
Just because some people can't afford something doesn't make it unfair. I can't afford a Ferrari, but that isn't unfair.
"By whom?"
By me. ;-)
Seriously though, while I have witnessed people cutting into lines unfairly and arguments starting in many other situations I have never seen a confrontation due to the fast track ticket system.
(Perhaps this is because it is sanctioned by the organisation so maybe people just grumble silently in this case, who knows)
They're not even bypassing social conventions. If they were, people would refuse to take the tips. The $20 tip itself is a social convention, even though not talking about it is also a social convention.
(No, seriously, I've worked in jobs where it's socially acceptable to get tipped. Unless you're a waitress that makes less than a minimum wage, nobody reports tips.)
True but that doesn't make this statement from the GP any less ridiculous: "You're effectively asking someone from a lower class to possibly break the law".
I know of waiters/waitresses that don't report all of their tips. Do we now say that tipping them is asking them to break the law? Of course not because that's their responsibility, not your's or mine. We're certainly not stopping them.
I mostly disagree there too (at least in the US). Tipping is so ingrained in American culture that I don't think you can put the burden on the tipper to know that doing so can get someone in trouble with their employer.
Just as it's their responsibility to report the income, it's their responsibility to inform the tipper that they cannot accept and, if they want to explain, tell them that it could get them in trouble.
Persistence with that knowledge is unacceptable but that's another matter.
I accidentally conflated tipping and bribing. I feel tipping is acceptable in certain narrowly defined and publicly acknowledged circumstances, whereas bribing is almost always wrong. I also feel there isn't a sharp distinction between the two.
