Publisher’s Note: The publisher has had no role in editing this column, which is published as the writer submitted it with the intention of publication in BEACONS.
By Amay Singh
Kathleen Kingsbury is the current editor of the Opinion section of the prestigious New York Times. Kingsbury was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in 2015 for Editorial Writing, for taking readers of the Boston Globe on a tour of restaurant workers' bank accounts to expose the real price of inexpensive menu items and the human costs of income inequality.
Centered around the issue of unfair pay and maldistribution of money in the restaurant business, Kingsbury exposes how scores of waiters/waitresses and table bussers are essentially living off their tips as they paid well under the minimum wage from their employers. Kingsbury uses statistics to help explain how restaurants should pay their wait staff minimum wage or whatever their negotiated wage is: and tips should be what the word implies a tip, a bonus in which someone earns on top of their standard pay. As tips on their own are not reliable as a waiter could potentially exceed their minimum wage solely on tips by working on a busy night, however, the opposite implies if a waiter works on a slow day or night, they may not even come close to making the minimum wage that they are supposed to earn.
The main argument that Kingsbury puts across is that this is a concerning problem and gives solutions to the issue of tipping and minimum wage by using examples of laws that other states have adopted. Kingsbury also observes a clear difference in the working conditions as well as pay between men and women as she factually proves it by backing up her opinion with statistics, first-hand interviews of restaurant employees, and/or any other relevant law/s from any of the 50 states that concern themselves with tipping and minimum wage. It is extremely hard to argue against Kingsbury when she opines that restaurant workers, namely waiters/waitresses and table bussers make less than minimum wage, in this editorial as almost everything is thoroughly researched and well-sourced. The statistics only add to Kingsbury's opinion and make her point clearer and more persuasive as they are hard to disprove, and they persuade the reader to believe there is an issue with the tipping system and something can be done and should be done. The use of an anecdote from a waitress who experienced the injustice of the tipping system first-hand just goes to show a problem does exist and it does not get much attention. The solutions that Kingsbury proposes to fix this issue are not far-fetched, they are simple ideas that would work and fix the issue altogether.
Kingsbury ably uses pathos to evoke the emotion of sadness, empathy, and pity among the readers by describing the barbaric working conditions that restaurant workers must go through. This emotional call-to-action is extremely persuasive as it first briefs us about the issue which tugs at your emotions by sharing the story of a young waitress at a popular restaurant, at the same time by presenting facts about the situation, the reader is motivated to not only think about the issue of tipping and minimum but rather to act in their individual capacities to help lessen the severity of this issue. Kingsbury explains the ineffective government actions surrounding the topic, as well as their lack of action. This urges readers to tip well in the meantime as a momentary fix till the time the United States gets its tipping and minimum laws in order.
The entire editorial is straight to the point and backed up with facts. It prompts the reader to read the entire article because it is not just a random ramble on the topic. Kingsbury gives in-depth detail about the statistics that she discovered; therefore, the reader actually understands what everything means, and given her single-handed fight against corporate America, especially, the fast-food industry, all her editorial that helped her win the Pulitzer just goes to show that this was a topic Kingsbury is extremely passionate about this very topic instead of a random one-off editorial on something she was tasked to write.
The way this column is structured, Kingsbury takes you on a little trip through history explaining the origins of “tipping" and how it has evolved and since been adopted in the United States. It then jumps to a hypothetical situation to show how tipping is essentially the equivalent of gambling for a restaurant worker which is then confirmed via an interview with a restaurant worker in a popular Washington city. All of this acts as the pretext to what Kingsbury is eventually coming at, the legal framework and structure that needs to be adjusted and amended to allow restaurant workers to actually earn a living rather than relying on something uncertain like tips. As we dive deeper into numbers and legal regulations, Kingsbury also confirms the existence of the gender wage gap and ends the editorial with an emotional call-to-action to tip waiters/waitresses well till the time the United State government intervenes and provides a safety-net in the form of better legal protection for restaurant workers. I personally felt this structuring was incredibly effective as it allows the reader to understand where Kingsbury is coming from and what she thinks is the best way to tackle this urban human rights violation.
The writer's tone is a mix of sympathy and outrage. Kingsbury is sympathetic towards the hardships and struggles that are faced by restaurant workers and equally outraged by the fast-food industry as well the legal frameworks and regulations that allow for such a brutal, barbaric work-pay situation that almost always favors the already rich capitalist and not the worker trying to make ends meet. Considering Kingsbury's tone, point of view, choice of words, and structure between dialogue and narration I think she does an incredible job of connecting with the reader. It is certainly effective to evoke the emotions Kingsbury was hoping for elicit for her readers. She amicably blends expository, persuasive as well as narrative writing to come up with this masterpiece that was truly deserving of her Pulitzer in 2015.
As a budding journalist, I really admire the passion Kingsbury portrays in all her entries for the Pulitzer Prize as well as how she has crafted not one but eight extremely thought-provoking editorials that question and challenge the fast-food industry. All these different aforementioned techniques that she uses in her article are why her article is so well-written and gets the reader interested.
