7 ms·

> "Now we can put the consumer first and create a level playing field for those businesses that advertise the real price, up front," I hope this means they're

by elyobo 3y ago

> "Now we can put the consumer first and create a level playing field for those businesses that advertise the real price, up front," I hope this means they're banning the common US practice of omitting sales taxes and tips from prices.

tansan 3y ago
That would be a game changer
hedora 3y ago
Don’t forget the “living wage surcharge” that many cities mandate for restaurant workers! It’s typically not disclosed until after you eat, and varies from city to city.
- p1necone 3y ago
  This seems insane to me. Paying your employees a living wage is just another cost of producing the food, it should be part of the menu cost like everything else. Splitting it out is no more sensible that adding "building rent" or "ingredient cost" as extra line items on the final bill.
  - pengaru 3y ago
    It is insane, and what's even more insane is that restaurants pulling this shit still have customers.
    - TOMDM 3y ago
      The problem near me is that basically every restaurant is doing it, avoiding it would essentially mean avoiding eating out.
      - hot_gril 3y ago
        This is what I did in SF, then I moved.
        TOMDM 3y ago
        Happy for you, I'm back to Australia at the end of the year, American restaurant culture is going to be in the top 3 things I won't miss.
      - linguae 3y ago
        This practice is becoming widespread in the Bay Area, and I saw this in Boston earlier this year on a business trip (and what made it worse was that the particular restaurant I ate at didn’t announce the fee in the menu; it wasn’t until I saw the check that I saw the 4% surcharge). I refuse to dine at restaurants that charge “kitchen fees” or “service fees.” There are still restaurants that don’t engage in this practice, but more are adopting it. Unfortunately if I’m with someone else who invites me to a restaurant that engages in such practices, then it’s harder for me to boycott.
        sokoloff 3y ago
        I have no issue with restaurants who want to use service fees or kitchen fees, provided they're entirely clearly displayed before ordering. If you add a 4% kitchen fee to the bill, my typical 18-20% tip becomes 14-16%, exactly the same as if you added a "parties of 6 or more have an automatic 18% service fee" then my tip becomes 0% (on top of the 18% you're already charging me). If you try to sneak in a 4% fee that wasn't disclosed, let's just say that my tip changes, but does not become larger, if I discover your deception.
        pengaru 3y ago
        > If you add a 4% kitchen fee to the bill, my typical 18-20% tip becomes 14-16%, exactly the same as if you added a "parties of 6 or more have an automatic 18% service fee" then my tip becomes 0% (on top of the 18% you're already charging me). It's unclear to my why you're equating tips with the bill (which 4% kitchen fee is part of, it's not gratuity). One of these goes to the peons, the other goes to the restaurant. Your approach is just doing the the restaurateur's dirty work of fleecing the employees' tips by shifting it directly into the restaurant's pot. Congratulations, working as intended from the restaurateur's perspective.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - dylan604 3y ago
    i'm assuming the use a flat number of expected guests to arrive each day so that each guest is paying the same amount of that prorated "cost". if not, do they start increasing each guest's prorated amount to cover shortfalls until the day when only one guest shows up and is expected to cover the full rate? the entire "making up shorted earnings via tips" is utter bullshit edit: s/guest/customer/
  - sircastor 3y ago
    It should be, yes. But consider the approach from the capitalist mindset. If, instead of charging your customers more (which disincentivizes their patronage) you can arbitrarily leave that portion of your employee’s wage on the customer’s shoulders. Someone else will pay the expense. And the government says it’s totally okay. And the restaurant industry is already razor thin margins. This doesn’t make it right, of course.
- KennyBlanken 3y ago
  No US city mandates a "living wage surcharge."
  - hedora 3y ago
    I stand corrected. However, the cities around here allow restaurants to falsely claim that the charge was mandated by the local government: https://web.archive.org/web/20230814142251/https://www.sfchronicle.com/restaurants/article/Explainer-What-is-this-SF-Mandates-13254923.php https://web.archive.org/web/20230814142251/https://www.sfchr...
emodendroket 3y ago
That seems extremely unlikely as it would require hundreds of versions of advertisements and menus.
fallingknife 3y ago
Unfortunately including tips doesn't work because that's a variable and technically voluntary charge. Also a problem for sales taxes because online stores don't know how much sales tax to charge until they have a shipping address.

by elyobo 3y ago

tansan 3y ago

That would be a game changer

hedora 3y ago

Don’t forget the “living wage surcharge” that many cities mandate for restaurant workers! It’s typically not disclosed until after you eat, and varies from city to city.

p1necone 3y ago
This seems insane to me. Paying your employees a living wage is just another cost of producing the food, it should be part of the menu cost like everything else. Splitting it out is no more sensible that adding "building rent" or "ingredient cost" as extra line items on the final bill.
- pengaru 3y ago
  It is insane, and what's even more insane is that restaurants pulling this shit still have customers.
  - TOMDM 3y ago
    The problem near me is that basically every restaurant is doing it, avoiding it would essentially mean avoiding eating out.
    - hot_gril 3y ago
      This is what I did in SF, then I moved.
      - TOMDM 3y ago
        Happy for you, I'm back to Australia at the end of the year, American restaurant culture is going to be in the top 3 things I won't miss.
    - linguae 3y ago
      This practice is becoming widespread in the Bay Area, and I saw this in Boston earlier this year on a business trip (and what made it worse was that the particular restaurant I ate at didn’t announce the fee in the menu; it wasn’t until I saw the check that I saw the 4% surcharge). I refuse to dine at restaurants that charge “kitchen fees” or “service fees.” There are still restaurants that don’t engage in this practice, but more are adopting it. Unfortunately if I’m with someone else who invites me to a restaurant that engages in such practices, then it’s harder for me to boycott.
      - sokoloff 3y ago
        I have no issue with restaurants who want to use service fees or kitchen fees, provided they're entirely clearly displayed before ordering. If you add a 4% kitchen fee to the bill, my typical 18-20% tip becomes 14-16%, exactly the same as if you added a "parties of 6 or more have an automatic 18% service fee" then my tip becomes 0% (on top of the 18% you're already charging me). If you try to sneak in a 4% fee that wasn't disclosed, let's just say that my tip changes, but does not become larger, if I discover your deception.
        pengaru 3y ago
        > If you add a 4% kitchen fee to the bill, my typical 18-20% tip becomes 14-16%, exactly the same as if you added a "parties of 6 or more have an automatic 18% service fee" then my tip becomes 0% (on top of the 18% you're already charging me). It's unclear to my why you're equating tips with the bill (which 4% kitchen fee is part of, it's not gratuity). One of these goes to the peons, the other goes to the restaurant. Your approach is just doing the the restaurateur's dirty work of fleecing the employees' tips by shifting it directly into the restaurant's pot. Congratulations, working as intended from the restaurateur's perspective.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- dylan604 3y ago
  i'm assuming the use a flat number of expected guests to arrive each day so that each guest is paying the same amount of that prorated "cost". if not, do they start increasing each guest's prorated amount to cover shortfalls until the day when only one guest shows up and is expected to cover the full rate? the entire "making up shorted earnings via tips" is utter bullshit edit: s/guest/customer/
- sircastor 3y ago
  It should be, yes. But consider the approach from the capitalist mindset. If, instead of charging your customers more (which disincentivizes their patronage) you can arbitrarily leave that portion of your employee’s wage on the customer’s shoulders. Someone else will pay the expense. And the government says it’s totally okay. And the restaurant industry is already razor thin margins. This doesn’t make it right, of course.
KennyBlanken 3y ago
No US city mandates a "living wage surcharge."
- hedora 3y ago
  I stand corrected. However, the cities around here allow restaurants to falsely claim that the charge was mandated by the local government: https://web.archive.org/web/20230814142251/https://www.sfchronicle.com/restaurants/article/Explainer-What-is-this-SF-Mandates-13254923.php https://web.archive.org/web/20230814142251/https://www.sfchr...

emodendroket 3y ago

That seems extremely unlikely as it would require hundreds of versions of advertisements and menus.

fallingknife 3y ago

Unfortunately including tips doesn't work because that's a variable and technically voluntary charge. Also a problem for sales taxes because online stores don't know how much sales tax to charge until they have a shipping address.