I think in this case, “banned” is referring to “paying workers below minimum hourly wage because they’re expected to make up the difference by convincing our patrons to generously donate +20% of their dinner bill”, not “citizens will be fined/incarcerated if they give someone money of their own free will”
Because it logically follows. If the businesses have to stop relying on customers to pay their employees what they are worth. Someone should have to pay their employees a valid living wage. And that logically would be the company.
I think in this case, “banned” is referring to “paying workers below minimum hourly wage because they’re expected to make up the difference by convincing our patrons to generously donate +20% of their dinner bill”, not “citizens will be fined/incarcerated if they give someone money of their own free will”
That would make sense, but then why did they follow that with “Workers need to demand living wages at the same time as ban comes into effect”?
Because it logically follows. If the businesses have to stop relying on customers to pay their employees what they are worth. Someone should have to pay their employees a valid living wage. And that logically would be the company.