Agree that the titles may distort the perception (you make an excellent point), but I was concerned about the conclusion of the article. Thank you for bringing that to light.
I also respect your reading of the article as a generalization of this predicament. This is also very helpful to reframe the article. But personally, I'm not so sure of that entirely. And that's because he's outlining tip practices, a voluntary operation, while offering no real conclusion beyond his observations (which I agree are universal) besides "please tip more." I would have also liked (unfairly expected?) someone who said "I have pretty much been in politics my whole adult life" to filter through that lens - policy enablement of the situation.
From the end of the article:
"As for customers… You want to see Spider Man? You desperately want to bring your kids to Encanto or Sing 2? And you want your popcorn, food, and drinks? Cool. But if you don’t tip or act like an asshole, taking your personal anger and frustrations on workers who don’t deserve it, workers will not be there to serve you.
"Good old Adam Smith and his invisible hand of supply and demand works both ways, and the reason why you won’t get what you want will be staring right back in the mirror."
I agree with the author: don't be an a$$hol3 is a good life principle. I actually agree people should tip, too, for good service. What I don't agree with is that, as a legislator, you should craft policy and policy enforcement around the concept of goodwill. Goodwill is a societal outcome of policy, not a requirement of policy. Especially when wellbeing through wage earning is at stake.
Also, supply and demand does work both ways, as the author says. Will policy be able to keep up? Meaning, if demand for workers increases, we should see adjustments in wages. Yet the "rely on tipping, take a lower wage" policy remains with know conditions of the system (that people might not tip).