4 ms·

> which is bullshit because the drip pricing that most people complain about is the X% "service charges" and "lifestyle fees" that restaurants have at the botto

by wnevets 3mo ago

> which is bullshit because the drip pricing that most people complain about is the X% "service charges" and "lifestyle fees" that restaurants have at the bottom of their menu in small print. I don't think I go to the same restaurants as everyone else.

buzer 3mo ago
It's unfortunately somewhat common these days and personally I actively avoid any place which does this. At least it's only somewhat common rather than the standard so it's still possible. Couple of examples: https://sushiconfidential.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/sc_camp_fullmenu.pdf https://sushiconfidential.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/sc_... "3.5% Living Wage Surcharge added to each bill which allows us to provide the service you have always enjoyed!" https://www.pacificcatch.com/menu/ https://www.pacificcatch.com/menu/ "NorCal - A 3% surcharge (5% in San Francisco) will be added to all Guest checks to help offset the rising cost of wages and benefits. This is not gratuity."
- patrickmay 3mo ago
  Because increasing prices by that percentage is too hard?
  - LordAtlas 3mo ago
    They're trying their best to make it seem that government policies and regulation compliance costs are responsible, hence the names of these charges.
    - ryandrake 3mo ago
      Yea, it's basically restaurant owners trying to get their customers involved in their political whining. Notice how you never see things like "Business License Fee" or "Restaurant Electricity Bill Surcharge" listed out as separate line items on customers' bills. Those are things restaurant owners have to pay, too, so why don't they get their own charges to customers? Why does only "Living Wage" get a line item on the customer's bill?
      - baq 3mo ago
        The elephant in the room would be an ‘employee salary surcharge’
      - xp84 3mo ago
        Hey now, let's not get carried away, these jackass restaurant owners want to make it clear, the "Living Wage" guilt trip is the tip part, and the fees THEY put on are to pay for "benefits like healthcare" and you're not allowed to consider it part of the tip. Nevermind that California doesn't even have a lower "tipped" min wage like some states do, so by supporting tipping, we're just saying that servers simply "deserve" more money for some reason than people who stock shelves or pick orders at Amazon or Walmart.
        expedition32 3mo ago
        If it is hard to find staff the wages go up. At least that's how it works in my country. Although I will admit service is notoriously bad over here but in honesty that's secretly how we all want it.
        AnthonyMouse 3mo ago
        > Nevermind that California doesn't even have a lower "tipped" min wage like some states do, so by supporting tipping, we're just saying that servers simply "deserve" more money for some reason than people who stock shelves or pick orders at Amazon or Walmart. Isn't this the thing the government is saying in California? They passed a law requiring restaurants to pay the same minimum wage as jobs where workers don't get tips, on top of the tips, essentially making it the law that people in tipped occupations have to be paid more than what can be paid to people doing any other kind of work. Unless the point is to get customers to stop tipping because a) the workers are now guaranteed the same minimum wage as anyone else even if they don't and b) they can't afford the tip on top of the prices that now have the higher minimum wage priced into them anyway.
      - robocat 3mo ago
        > Electricity Bill Surcharge "Fuel surcharge" on flights. Which should be illegal: the cost of hedging fuel cost risk should be included in any ticket price. A friend said that Uber was charging a fuel surcharge here in New Zealand, but that it wasn't passed on to the driver (who pays for the fuel). If true I would find that interesting.
    - SoftTalker 3mo ago
      Well, they are responsible.
  - fhdkweig 3mo ago
    If you want to claim "we have the lowest prices in town" in advertising, you can't increase the "price".
    - efreak 3mo ago
      That's why you don't say _in town_. That's verifiable and specific. You just say _lowest prices_ (nobody cares if you aren't specific), or add fine print that specifies a time/location (Amazon renewed: comparison price is the brand new version of same item on Amazon itself) or _only at $store_ (your competitors aren't participating in your branded sale).
  - arnarbi 3mo ago
    Restaurant owners interviewed in the media here in SF are directly quoted saying they can’t do that because “customers would notice”, or think “oh that’s expensive, I can’t eat out twice a week”. These are arguments for including the fees that make the customer __still pay the same higher price__, implying that the whole point is that they won’t notice. And reporters don’t seem to even register the absurdity of those remarks or question them in any way. https://www.sfgate.com/food/article/sf-restaurants-junk-fees-law-19436419.php#:~:text=People%20will%20notice%20that. https://www.sfgate.com/food/article/sf-restaurants-junk-fees... https://www.kqed.org/news/11992412/californias-junk-fee-ban-begins-but-restaurants-get-a-pass#:~:text=You%20can%20raise%20the%20prices.%20But%20then%20we%20anticipate%20consumers%20will%20do%20what%20my%20husband%20and%20I%20do https://www.kqed.org/news/11992412/californias-junk-fee-ban-...
    - sieabahlpark 3mo ago
      [dead]
    - phil21 3mo ago
      It’s the same thing with any “menu” vs actual price. Airline baggage fees are probably the prototypical case for this. Airlines that did not display the lowest price during flight searches got outcompeted by those that did. This led the entire industry to change since it took an entire decade long marketing campaign centered around it (Southwest) to try to stay even. Consumers make irrational choices all the time, and this is one of them. They absolutely notice the final bill and complain while continuing to patronize businesses that engage in such behavior. Consumers would need to reward honest pricing if they wanted this to change. Or vote for regulation.
      - dzhiurgis 3mo ago
        More akin comparison would be charging for carryon vs condiments. I just did trip with family where our allowance was 8 suitcases of 184 kg total weight. Buying same on a budget carrier we used on our leg would cost more than flights itself.
      - arnarbi 3mo ago
- quickthrowman 3mo ago
  They need to price it in to the menu. I run Union electrical jobs and I don’t list out every fringe benefit they receive on an itemized invoice. It’s $163/hr with everything baked in. If restaurants want to pay a living wage, charge more money for food.
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
nkrisc 3mo ago
I tried searching for what a "lifestyle fee" is and all I could find is references to "living wage fee" which is essentially a forced tip added to the bill. A service charge for large groups though is understandable as they typically will require much more attention and work from waitstaff than the typical small dining party.
- pnw 3mo ago
  Large groups are also the most notorious non-tippers.
- TulliusCicero 3mo ago
  I'm somewhat skeptical that they actually require more attention per person. Does an 8-person group require more than 2x as much attention as a 4-person group?
  - smelendez 3mo ago
    They do need more attention per person. Doing anything with a group of eight is just more complicated, and you’re more likely to have a person in the group who slows things down for whatever reason plus people trying to help them which can slow things down more. They’ll take longer per person to order because they’ll be coordinating appetizers and who’s sharing what, etc. They’re more likely to be celebrating a special occasion which means people less familiar with the restaurant or even people who don’t eat out much at all. And the group is big enough that people will be having side conversations while one side of the table talks to the server, which also slows things down.
    - account42 3mo ago
      > They do need more attention per person. Doing anything with a group of eight is just more complicated, and you’re more likely to have a person in the group who slows things down More likely to have such a person in a group of 8 than in a group of 1 maybe but that's meaningless. > for whatever reason plus people trying to help them which can slow things down more. And group members helping each other never saves the restaurant any time? > They’ll take longer per person to order because they’ll be coordinating appetizers and who’s sharing what, etc. Appetizers they would likely have never ordered if they did not have people to share them with. > They’re more likely to be celebrating a special occasion which means people less familiar with the restaurant or even people who don’t eat out much at all. So they're even bringing new customers that would have never given the restaurant any money on their own.

by wnevets 3mo ago

buzer 3mo ago

It's unfortunately somewhat common these days and personally I actively avoid any place which does this. At least it's only somewhat common rather than the standard so it's still possible. Couple of examples: https://sushiconfidential.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/sc_camp_fullmenu.pdf https://sushiconfidential.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/sc_... "3.5% Living Wage Surcharge added to each bill which allows us to provide the service you have always enjoyed!" https://www.pacificcatch.com/menu/ https://www.pacificcatch.com/menu/ "NorCal - A 3% surcharge (5% in San Francisco) will be added to all Guest checks to help offset the rising cost of wages and benefits. This is not gratuity."

patrickmay 3mo ago
Because increasing prices by that percentage is too hard?
- LordAtlas 3mo ago
  They're trying their best to make it seem that government policies and regulation compliance costs are responsible, hence the names of these charges.
  - ryandrake 3mo ago
    Yea, it's basically restaurant owners trying to get their customers involved in their political whining. Notice how you never see things like "Business License Fee" or "Restaurant Electricity Bill Surcharge" listed out as separate line items on customers' bills. Those are things restaurant owners have to pay, too, so why don't they get their own charges to customers? Why does only "Living Wage" get a line item on the customer's bill?
    - baq 3mo ago
      The elephant in the room would be an ‘employee salary surcharge’
    - xp84 3mo ago
      Hey now, let's not get carried away, these jackass restaurant owners want to make it clear, the "Living Wage" guilt trip is the tip part, and the fees THEY put on are to pay for "benefits like healthcare" and you're not allowed to consider it part of the tip. Nevermind that California doesn't even have a lower "tipped" min wage like some states do, so by supporting tipping, we're just saying that servers simply "deserve" more money for some reason than people who stock shelves or pick orders at Amazon or Walmart.
      - expedition32 3mo ago
        If it is hard to find staff the wages go up. At least that's how it works in my country. Although I will admit service is notoriously bad over here but in honesty that's secretly how we all want it.
      - AnthonyMouse 3mo ago
        > Nevermind that California doesn't even have a lower "tipped" min wage like some states do, so by supporting tipping, we're just saying that servers simply "deserve" more money for some reason than people who stock shelves or pick orders at Amazon or Walmart. Isn't this the thing the government is saying in California? They passed a law requiring restaurants to pay the same minimum wage as jobs where workers don't get tips, on top of the tips, essentially making it the law that people in tipped occupations have to be paid more than what can be paid to people doing any other kind of work. Unless the point is to get customers to stop tipping because a) the workers are now guaranteed the same minimum wage as anyone else even if they don't and b) they can't afford the tip on top of the prices that now have the higher minimum wage priced into them anyway.
    - robocat 3mo ago
      > Electricity Bill Surcharge "Fuel surcharge" on flights. Which should be illegal: the cost of hedging fuel cost risk should be included in any ticket price. A friend said that Uber was charging a fuel surcharge here in New Zealand, but that it wasn't passed on to the driver (who pays for the fuel). If true I would find that interesting.
  - SoftTalker 3mo ago
    Well, they are responsible.
- fhdkweig 3mo ago
  If you want to claim "we have the lowest prices in town" in advertising, you can't increase the "price".
  - efreak 3mo ago
    That's why you don't say _in town_. That's verifiable and specific. You just say _lowest prices_ (nobody cares if you aren't specific), or add fine print that specifies a time/location (Amazon renewed: comparison price is the brand new version of same item on Amazon itself) or _only at $store_ (your competitors aren't participating in your branded sale).
- arnarbi 3mo ago
  Restaurant owners interviewed in the media here in SF are directly quoted saying they can’t do that because “customers would notice”, or think “oh that’s expensive, I can’t eat out twice a week”. These are arguments for including the fees that make the customer __still pay the same higher price__, implying that the whole point is that they won’t notice. And reporters don’t seem to even register the absurdity of those remarks or question them in any way. https://www.sfgate.com/food/article/sf-restaurants-junk-fees-law-19436419.php#:~:text=People%20will%20notice%20that. https://www.sfgate.com/food/article/sf-restaurants-junk-fees... https://www.kqed.org/news/11992412/californias-junk-fee-ban-begins-but-restaurants-get-a-pass#:~:text=You%20can%20raise%20the%20prices.%20But%20then%20we%20anticipate%20consumers%20will%20do%20what%20my%20husband%20and%20I%20do https://www.kqed.org/news/11992412/californias-junk-fee-ban-...
  - sieabahlpark 3mo ago
    [dead]
  - phil21 3mo ago
    It’s the same thing with any “menu” vs actual price. Airline baggage fees are probably the prototypical case for this. Airlines that did not display the lowest price during flight searches got outcompeted by those that did. This led the entire industry to change since it took an entire decade long marketing campaign centered around it (Southwest) to try to stay even. Consumers make irrational choices all the time, and this is one of them. They absolutely notice the final bill and complain while continuing to patronize businesses that engage in such behavior. Consumers would need to reward honest pricing if they wanted this to change. Or vote for regulation.
    - dzhiurgis 3mo ago
      More akin comparison would be charging for carryon vs condiments. I just did trip with family where our allowance was 8 suitcases of 184 kg total weight. Buying same on a budget carrier we used on our leg would cost more than flights itself.
    - arnarbi 3mo ago
quickthrowman 3mo ago
They need to price it in to the menu. I run Union electrical jobs and I don’t list out every fringe benefit they receive on an itemized invoice. It’s $163/hr with everything baked in. If restaurants want to pay a living wage, charge more money for food.
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]

nkrisc 3mo ago

I tried searching for what a "lifestyle fee" is and all I could find is references to "living wage fee" which is essentially a forced tip added to the bill. A service charge for large groups though is understandable as they typically will require much more attention and work from waitstaff than the typical small dining party.

pnw 3mo ago
Large groups are also the most notorious non-tippers.
TulliusCicero 3mo ago
I'm somewhat skeptical that they actually require more attention per person. Does an 8-person group require more than 2x as much attention as a 4-person group?
- smelendez 3mo ago
  They do need more attention per person. Doing anything with a group of eight is just more complicated, and you’re more likely to have a person in the group who slows things down for whatever reason plus people trying to help them which can slow things down more. They’ll take longer per person to order because they’ll be coordinating appetizers and who’s sharing what, etc. They’re more likely to be celebrating a special occasion which means people less familiar with the restaurant or even people who don’t eat out much at all. And the group is big enough that people will be having side conversations while one side of the table talks to the server, which also slows things down.
  - account42 3mo ago
    > They do need more attention per person. Doing anything with a group of eight is just more complicated, and you’re more likely to have a person in the group who slows things down More likely to have such a person in a group of 8 than in a group of 1 maybe but that's meaningless. > for whatever reason plus people trying to help them which can slow things down more. And group members helping each other never saves the restaurant any time? > They’ll take longer per person to order because they’ll be coordinating appetizers and who’s sharing what, etc. Appetizers they would likely have never ordered if they did not have people to share them with. > They’re more likely to be celebrating a special occasion which means people less familiar with the restaurant or even people who don’t eat out much at all. So they're even bringing new customers that would have never given the restaurant any money on their own.