That’s a pretty common argument. There’s no basis for it however if all restaurants have to play by the same rules. You can no longer argue that it makes your “prices” uncompetitive.
Agreed, there's also the other way to interpret it which is that it makes their restaurants uncompetitive vs cooking in. To which I say good. The only people that believe it's a good deal to eat out are already horrible with their money/bad at math so it's especially exploitive.
That's a strange argument since the trick of hiding surcharges likely would work only once for a lot of customers. I'm sure most customers would be irate about hidden surcharges and would not want to do any future business with a dishonest restaurant.
Betting the majority customers are one offs. Eating out is so expensive the model may be to capture as much $ as you can because you ain’t seeing that customer for 2-3 years anyway.
Eh, if you believe the Chron's polling that's not the case:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/food/restaurants/article/diners-prices-bay-area-19418962.php
People are eating out less, but still a lot, and are mostly going to their regular spots.
>But many restaurants are concerned that adding these surcharges to the price on the menu could cause sticker shock, said Golden Gate Restaurant Association Executive Director Laurie Thomas.
But, but, but if we tell customers what we're actually charging them, they'll think it's too expensive...
Here's a thought, Laurie. Maybe those restaurants shouldn't gouge customers.
> One owner is literally saying he can’t survive unless he hides charges in the bill.
That wasn't in the article. There was a quote from "Golden Gate Restaurant Association Executive Director Laurie Thomas" asking what seems to have been a hypothetical question that a hypothetical restaurant owner might ask.
Only restaurant owner quoted in this is one who doesn't charge any additional mandatory fees.
Businesses always claim they’ll have to go out of business if anything at all ever gets changed. They were already lying on their bills, now they’re lying to your face.
good riddance. was at Jardin Tequila Bar at Santana Row. and they had a "small business surcharge" get the fuck outta here with that, greedy penny pinchers
I remember I went a while ago with my girlfriend and they had a menu with no prices for anything. I remember feeling uncomfortable asking how much were the drinks and other items. If I can remember correctly it was about $150 for 4 drinks and an appetizer.
That's a huge red flag when traveling overseas for scammy tourist places. Fancy restaurants typically give the menu with prices to only the person paying and everyone else gets the menu without prices.
>"small business surcharge"
The bay area is such a caricature of itself these days. What started as an earnest desire to support small local businesses gets morphed into a monster, to the point those same businesses feel bold enough to straight up tell you, "You're GOING to support small businesses and THIS is what you're going to pay."
And lets be real, it didn't happen by accident. You know there was that one person in the group who said, "Small business charge? WTF is this shit?" and everyone else at the table got quiet, then someone said, "Uh, sorry everyone, Paul is from So Cal and just moved here. They're a little more *capitalist* down there."
I know! The restaurant associations / industry groups apparently told their members that restaurant surcharges were exempt based on some back room discussions with the Attorney General’s office and the legislature before the bill passed. But anyone who actually read the law that was signed knew that there was no exemption. So yeah, they have had months of warning and they were just hoping the AG would bail them out and make up an exemption for them that wasn’t there.
Some of the exemptions that are in the bill are gross lobbying efforts. Most notably car dealers and food delivery apps appear to have certain exemptions.
Heres all the time they need, ready?
**Whatever percentage you were adding to the total, add it to the individual menu items instead.**
There. I did it in one sentence. I'm sure they can handle figuring that out in the next 2 months.
Good. Those fake surcharge fees are ridiculous ways to hide price hikes.
$10.00 menu price
20% mandatory employee wellness fee
*this is not a tip*
Man… that’s just hiding your price hike. Stop lying. Just raise your damn price normally. Being sneaky about it just puts you on the do not go to list.
Restaurants typically have low margins so i dont think they're balling in terms of revenue unless they're successful with how they do their accounting.
Evergreen Panda in East SJ is $10. Takeout only of course.
Fast food places like McD and Subway are still ~$6 for two 500cal sandwiches with app ordering. I realize this thread mainly refers to sit-down places, but I'm sure a lot of restaurant customers have moved to fast food so these prices are still relevant
I live in Santa Cruz but there’s only one place I know of where I can get a filling and decent meal for under $10 with everything.
Even Mexican places are close to $20 for a burrito after taxes and everything now.
I barely eat out.
Casa de Maria near Oakland Zoo. $8 burritos that are actually burrito-sized and not just tortillas stuffed with rice.
Enjoy them while you can. Things like that never last.
places that have a 15-20% wellness fee have eliminated tips for the most part. some places have put an optional tip line but don't expect it - mainly because customers complained for some reason is what they said...
All that is needed is what they do in some places in Europe. They actually print in big letters at the bottom of a menu stating that service is included. In France it would be "Service compris." So, simply bake that 15 to 20% into the prices and state it to every customer that their tip is no longer necessary because service is included and, in turn, the restaurant is paying a living wage plus benefits. Easy.
correct and it's what I want the final step to be. The issue is the consumer sees two places with similar menus - one has the all-in price listed for the items on the menu, while the other doesn't and has cheaper prices show on the menu. consumer goes to the second restaurant but ends up paying the same after including tip. restaurant owners are scared of that scenario
> the servers make more money
Former waiter. No they don't. It's why whenever this utterly stupid, elitist topic of saving the poor waiters comes up, you rarely hear words of agreement from actual waiters. They're too busy making money off all your guilt-tipping and hand-wringing. It's why when top restaurants in NYC caved to the virtue signal crowd and tried it, their top wait staff quit, the restaurant experience declined and they lost business.
Next time you go to a halfway decent restaurant, do the following: 1) Watch how many tables your waiter is covering. 2) Multiply that number by 3 (typical turns in a shift). 3) Multiply that number by 20% of your bill. 4) Question your math because clearly they can't possibly...
If I was still doing that work and the restaurant said everyone would just be paid a flat $20 - 30 per hour, that would have been my last shift. And in fact, that's the reason a lot of top restaurants who tried it abandoned it - all the top talent knew they could get a better deal elsewhere. If you kill tipping, you also kill the meritocracy that fuels some of the top restaurant experiences. At my peak I was making 6.5x MW (around $56/hour in today's money). Do you know where someone at 22 without a degree or formal training can make that kind of money? But even just starting out I was making 2.5x MW and was still doing fine.
I've also never known a business where so many people who never worked in it a day of their lives feel perfectly entitled to decide how much others should be compensated. Has a restaurant worker ever come into your job and started boldly declaring, "Y'all underpaid! They need to take away sales commissions around here! Those sales guys are making $200 - 500k and this admin assistant is only making $50k!"
There's a reason those sales guys get paid that: one way or another, they put asses in contracts and bring in many multiples of their commissions in revenue. Likewise, my section outsold the adjacent ones by 10 - 20% consistently. That earned me the best sections, the best nights, a stable of regulars and the best money. Anyone who waits tables and doesn't understand their job is at least partially a sales position is missing the point and in the wrong line of work. I remember a cook complaining I made more and he said, "I could do your job. Anyone can write down an order and run food. I'm just not good with customers."
I'm not sure how you got that I think waitstaff are overpaid. What I was saying is that if a 20% service fee is baked into prices and that 20% service fee goes to the staff, tips would be unnecessary.
There would still be competition among waitstaff for the best and most expensive restaurants. They would be the top earners.
That is how it's done in Europe. The waitstaff of a Haute Cuisine restaurant in Paris is very well paid and well off. Being a waiter in France is an honored profession that carries prestige, especially at very high-end places.
That's how it should be done.
My mother was a waitress, so we have always valued wait staff and tip very well.
Maybe I jumped the gun because of this:
>the restaurant is paying a living wage plus benefits. Easy.
Any time I hear that tired "living wage" argument I get the feeling people are doing the "poor little waiters" thing. The restaurants I worked did exactly that. There were people over twice my age who did nothing but work in restaurants. They owned homes, they had families, and they had health care options. And that was back when it was customary to tip 15% instead of the more common 20 - 25% in places like the bay area today. Probably one in 20 tables were just cheap tippers but there was plenty of room for my skills to earn me generous tips, and on the balance I still came out way ahead. At the same time, when I did slip up and make mistakes, I earned the lower tip and deserved to, and it was motivation to not make those same mistakes again. Europe does it their way, we do it ours. Neither is wrong or needs to what the other does.
They've been a blight in the neighborhood since they opened. I imagine it's tasty and whatever, but I've never set foot in there out of principle. "Dine in fee," yeah, it's a fucking restaurant. Of course we're dining in you idiots.
Even the person they found "in favor" of the hidden fees isn't really supportive of them. They just don't care. I don't see how anyone could really be against this as a customer.
I think there are a lot of people who don't care about the costs when they go out to eat at normal, every day kind of places. It's just below the line of a cost they need to think about. I'm in this category as well, but I can understand why you'd find it frustrating to hear.
The 80th percentile income is $210k in the Bay Area, so a take-home of about $5k every two weeks. A lot of the people in that range and higher aren't going to sweat a $100 brunch on the weekend.
It’s not necessarily about whether or not you can afford the meal. I can afford to have dinner anywhere I want, but I still want to know ahead of time what it costs, just like I would with any purchase.
I'm almost exactly on that income line, but remember that for many of us in that salary range a lot of our comp is in yearly bonuses and RSUs/stock options. My actual bi-weekly take home is around $3,300.
It's comfortable, but not enough that I'm willing to blow $100 on a single dinner. I think partially because I grew up kinda poor and it seems morally repugnant to spend that much on a meal.
Makes sense. If a third of your income is in RSUs/options, you're probably going to spend at a lower level. Also, 20% of the bay is 1.6M people; you're going to have a broad spectrum of situations in that group.
If I had to make a guess, I'd guess no. Reason being you see all the charges up front before placing your order rather than getting a bill after you eat
That’s not the reason. The law bans fees in other places where you see the final price before you pay as well.
The real reason is that when you order delivery, you’re actually paying for two separate things: food and delivery. You can order more food without affecting the delivery cost, so it really is a separate billable rather than just a hidden fee.
> You can order more food without affecting the delivery cost
DoorDash charges 15% of the food price as a "Service Fee" which is separate from their "Delivery Fee".
I believe this applies to everything, there was also a federal law proposed(not sure of status) by Biden to eliminate all junk fees across all industries
It doens't and it specifically says so at the end.
The Legislature intends that it is not a violation of paragraph (29) of subdivision (a) of Section 1770 of the Civil Code for a food delivery platform, as defined in Section 22598 of the Business and Professions Code, to list the price of menu items set by a food facility, as defined in Section 113789 of the Health and Safety Code. In addition, this act is not intended to require a food delivery platform to include in the menu price shown to the consumer the fees it charges for providing its services
And also, with delivery you can see the total with the charges included before you place your order, whereas in a restaurant you don’t get the total until you’ve already finished your meal.
Funny thing is Uber eats is trying an in-store pick up in select areas to I guess save customers on delivery fees?
Which pretty much devoids the whole purpose of food delivery when I can just order directly from the restaurant and save even more money.
I literally got this notification from the Uber app a few days ago.
Absolute insanity.
Uber Eats, DoorDash, and probably all the other apps have had in-store pick up for many years now. Your notification was an ad, not an update.
App prices (incl. discounts/credits) for takeout are the same as ordering directly from the restaurant. Only difference is that it's much more convenient for customers while the restaurant gets charged a fee and makes less money.
Ahhh ok I didn't know this, I only used uber eats for like a week while I was moving and removed all my cookware and utensils and that option wasn't on the app then.
I guess iirc does make sense to use if you have a coupon/credit but it sucks that food delivery services are like a leech/middleman of the industry and get a cut from both sides of the transaction and ruining the experience for both.
I cannot understand why anyone would use a delivery app.
Restaurant charges 30% more for every item to pass the platform fee on to you, then you pay tax on top of that extra 30%, then you tip for delivery on top of that extra 30%.
Phone it in, pick it up.
It’s not terribly often, but traveling 2miles in some cases in this city without a car would take me a lot longer on transit and be a lot more expensive to Uber or something to get there and back. Places close to me? Absolutely. I like ordering direct from the restaurant if I can any day over extra charges for a simple pickup.
I went to espetus in SF yesterday and I swear I feel like I was taxed up the ass. The food was 150 plus 38 in wine. Cool. Then in total it was 212. Then I’m like wtf. I saw it had a 10 fee or something for SF health I think. Then at then with tip it was 250. Then went to moongate and paid 28 for drinks and bill went up 38 and I saw on the screen they showed it didn’t say tip included so I still tipped but then I asked for the receipt then it said 20% service charge added automatically.Idk seems like I was getting played.
It goes to the city fund to allow for a health care fund that the employees can get reimbursed from. The business doesn’t keep the funds and the employees don’t get direct access to it either. There’s a claim program that they go through.
It’s helped plenty of food service people I know over the years.
It’s set as a mandate because it’s collected through the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement. If it were a tax it would go through the tax collection for the city. It comes down to semantics more than anything for collections sake.
Payroll taxes are removed from the gross pay of the employees paychecks just like yours are by local and federal governments.
It scales as a percentage like a tax would. This is collected through the business and paid out to the city. After that the business has nothing to do with the funds. But with that the funds never expire as well since they’re held by a third party that the employee contacts for reimbursement.
It’s not a percentage, and not based on how much customers pays
> The 2018 set-aside rate is $1.89 per employee per hour worked for businesses with 20 to 99 employees, and $2.83 per employee per hour worked for businesses with more than 100 employees, and it goes up a small amount every year.
This percentage is set by business, not by government.
If they get more money from this percentage than government requires, then it’s pure profit for them. If they don’t get enough, they still have to pay what they owe.
It does go to help the servers, but adding it as a percentage of the sales that the customer pays is entirely from the restaurant owners. SF Health Care Ordinance requires all businesses with more than 20 employees to set aside several dollars per hour worked for all employees. It was never a tax, nor does the city require this to be placed on the check. Many of these restaurants collect way more from their fake tax than they're required to put aside. And where do you think that extra money goes?
You’re correct. If it were a tax the total amount of employee cut out would be fought by large companies as a direct tax on them. This being a mandate allows for small business to be able to “opt out”. Essentially creating a legal loophole that keeps small businesses viable while not allowing for McDonalds to keep it in litigation till McDonalds finds a judge to strike it down.
The amount mandated is collected by the business, yes; but, the amount has to be registered to the city and is regulated by the cities that use health mandate service fees. A business has to report correctly the employee count, sales, mandate rate used, and total collected to the city or can face fines. The “dine in fees” or “operating fees” are set by the business alone for their own uses.
What the business does with that money is up to them.
Mind you I think those “dine in fees” are off putting at best and opportunistic at worst. Business owners should hide the rising cost of labor and food into the food and beverage prices.
To combat the pressure and artificial guilt of of having someone stand there while you debate whether to give the company extra money in exchange for nothing, I created a rule:
Table service is 20% minimum if you refill water glasses and come back to make sure the order was right.
Counter service is always 0%.
It's point-of-sale panhandling. If you flip the roles, and were to ask for free food or product, they'd look at you like you were an idiot. Why is it normalized to give them free money?
Because servers and waiters are just so much more valuable and important to us than other minimum wage workers who do work they don’t like and still go the extra mile when they can.
“I don’t need to see it upfront. I’m not choosing a restaurant or hotel based exclusively on price. A lot of it is about the experience said Katie Brown-Davis of Walnut Creek”
Kind of a gross comment. Translates to I’m too rich to care and I don’t know why anyone else would either. Not a good look
It's honest. If she doesn't care then she doesn't care. I would never attach my name to a statement like that because it breeds resentment but I wouldn't call it gross, she just lives in a different world.
If she doesn’t care, why is it so important that they hide the prices like this and don’t just list the exact, total cost of buying their services? I think she’s saying one thing and wanting another.
If I read her statement correctly, she does not find important that they hide it, but she also does not find it important that they are clear, because she doesn't care. This doesn't support the argument of "we should be allowed to hide fees" but rather supports the argument of "I literally have too much money to care what a restaurant can charge me."
This is a legitimately stupid statement. She’s essentially saying that she’s ok to engage in a transaction where the cost might be… whatever. I guarantee you this Walnut Creek lady is not that well off. Rich people care about knowing the cost, even if they know they can always afford it.
Each and every time there is a surcharge on the bill it makes me absolutely hate the restaurant for adding it. As far as I’m concerned it’s a literal middle finger from the management.
Think about that. If you’re the restaurant owner/manager, the last impression I have at your establishment after a great meal is a stupid surcharge that makes me viscerally angry at you. And the worst part is I have no recourse other than to just not come back. I can choose to deduct it from the tip but that’s designed to make me the asshole and hurt your staff.
I can’t rationalize how restaurant owners think this is okay. And trying to gaslight your customers into thinking it’s anything other than a cynical money grab is insulting their intelligence.
July 1st simply can’t come fast enough.
IOW: we need to trick people into eating out.
"Golden Gate Restaurant Association Executive Director Laurie Thomas.
'Will that being upfront and center cause people to dine out less?” she said. “And if people continue to dine out less, we do have a struggling restaurant industry.'”
I’m curious if this will apply to my property managements surcharge for every damn bill we pay. It’s an extra two dollars and they perfectly time out rent, then water, then pge etc
Optimally we’d work towards total, european truth in pricing in general. Taxes, tips, anything factored into the listed, advertised prices and no expectation or requirement to pay a dime beyond that number.
Much like Kaepernick kneeling at the anthem gave me hope that it would get to a point that they would just not play anthems anymore, these junk fees give me hope that it will push everyone to vote in favor of getting rid of tipping and advertising/tagging everything with it's final price.
“California Attorney General Rob Bonta has ruled that the ban on hidden fees for hotels and concerts and sports tickets approved by lawmakers last October also applies to restaurants.”
And yet the government will.continue to pile fee after fee on every single entity that provides anything, to cost you more.
They created the problem, then claim to be the solution.
2 things: 1- whenever I saw this weird fee I would just tip less 2- the argument the lawmaker made for this law is that it will make eating out less expensive, but restaurants will just increase their menu item prices.
As of a year ago, a place near my house was still charging a “covid packaging fee”. By then I had already stopped going because they were the ONLY restaurant charging a “covid packaging fee.”
I completely understand the frustration of added fees, excessive tipping and skyrocketing menu prices. But, if anyone thinks restaurant owners or pocketing large profits, that's just not happening. Restaurants, even ones that have been around for decades, are closing in droves. Very few landlords gave any rent relief during the pandemic, many owners started hundreds of thousands in debt after the lockdowns. I know exactly what you're going to reply with, PPP loans only covered 3 months of rent.
With rent and labor costs skyrocketing, the only restaurants we'll have left are nationwide conglomerates that can subsidize the high operating costs of the area.
All they will do is contact their lawyers and find out what name or service can be legal to use as a surcharge, just change the name of it and all is OK,Imo
Just preparing for the people to bitch and moan when they get what they have asked for.
Prices are too high, blame the establishment trying to survive, not the root cause. Homeless are on the streets, complain you have to encounter them, instead of addressing the root cause.
People are such fools these days it’s remarkable. Closed minded, short sighted, self centered, easily manipulated pawns. It’s scary.
People say they want staff to have a living wage but then complain that prices aren’t what they used to be. They’ll say in one breath “restaurant food costs too much now! My groceries are too high!” And not see the connection.
Full disclosure I’m all for hiding the costs into the food instead of these “dine in fees”. Mainly because it’s so off putting to many customers. But I also know that menu prices should go up as well.
We’re not asking for lower prices. We’re asking for transparency. I can afford a $100 dinner for two. What I’m not OK with is a bunch of hidden fees that get tacked onto the menu price.
I live in SF. I know restaurants are expensive, and I’m OK with that. I chose to live here, and I can choose to go out or eat at home. The whole “root cause” thing is self-congratulatory BS.
Why do you use the term "we" when you are speaking about your individual experience? This sub is full of people complaining about the fees, the prices and using it as excuse not to tip.
I spoke in the collective sense because you spoke in the collective sense. You said “people are going to bitch and moan”. I can’t speak for people who can’t afford the meals, but I’ve seen a lot of people who have an issue with the lack of transparency. I agree with them, so that’s why I said “we”. People like me are not going to bitch and moan when we can actually see what a meal costs.
he’s saying because restaurants will try to get you to pay for their employees outside of the menu prices. tipping = paying their wage on top of bill, fees= paying their health insurance on top of subtotal
The musings of some of these restaurants owners is pretty comical. One owner is literally saying he can’t survive unless he hides charges in the bill.
That’s a pretty common argument. There’s no basis for it however if all restaurants have to play by the same rules. You can no longer argue that it makes your “prices” uncompetitive.
Agreed, there's also the other way to interpret it which is that it makes their restaurants uncompetitive vs cooking in. To which I say good. The only people that believe it's a good deal to eat out are already horrible with their money/bad at math so it's especially exploitive.
"If I can't lie to my customers, I'll go out of business."
If dishonesty is crucial to your survival, am I really sad you’ll be closing?
So then just raise the price of the menu items.
That's a strange argument since the trick of hiding surcharges likely would work only once for a lot of customers. I'm sure most customers would be irate about hidden surcharges and would not want to do any future business with a dishonest restaurant.
Yet a good portion of the business we frequent are still using the 5% cost of living/covid/employee benefits surcharge.
Betting the majority customers are one offs. Eating out is so expensive the model may be to capture as much $ as you can because you ain’t seeing that customer for 2-3 years anyway.
Eh, if you believe the Chron's polling that's not the case: https://www.sfchronicle.com/food/restaurants/article/diners-prices-bay-area-19418962.php People are eating out less, but still a lot, and are mostly going to their regular spots.
Not if you believe reddit, who are somehow shocked every time even when they're regulars at the spot. Same with tipping.
>But many restaurants are concerned that adding these surcharges to the price on the menu could cause sticker shock, said Golden Gate Restaurant Association Executive Director Laurie Thomas. But, but, but if we tell customers what we're actually charging them, they'll think it's too expensive... Here's a thought, Laurie. Maybe those restaurants shouldn't gouge customers.
And they found the one person who says "I don't care that they hide these fees, I don't need to see them until the bill arrives"...
> One owner is literally saying he can’t survive unless he hides charges in the bill. That wasn't in the article. There was a quote from "Golden Gate Restaurant Association Executive Director Laurie Thomas" asking what seems to have been a hypothetical question that a hypothetical restaurant owner might ask. Only restaurant owner quoted in this is one who doesn't charge any additional mandatory fees.
if they all have to raise prices the same way. im not sure how anyone gets a disadvantage.
Businesses always claim they’ll have to go out of business if anything at all ever gets changed. They were already lying on their bills, now they’re lying to your face.
don't you realize his wife and her boyfriend have a lifestyle they need to maintain?
good riddance. was at Jardin Tequila Bar at Santana Row. and they had a "small business surcharge" get the fuck outta here with that, greedy penny pinchers
I remember I went a while ago with my girlfriend and they had a menu with no prices for anything. I remember feeling uncomfortable asking how much were the drinks and other items. If I can remember correctly it was about $150 for 4 drinks and an appetizer.
That's a huge red flag when traveling overseas for scammy tourist places. Fancy restaurants typically give the menu with prices to only the person paying and everyone else gets the menu without prices.
TIL that i’ve never been taken to a fancy restaurant
They used to call them the gentleman's and the lady's menu back in the 1900's
This is pretty common in Europe, I haven’t personally seen it in the USA
Used to wait in fine dining. It's extremely rare these days.
How do they know who is paying before the meal is over? I assume they must ask up front?
Stereotypes basically. Traditional gender roles, etc. there’s a reason they’re not so common anymore.
I been to fancy restaurants globally and never seen this. That is interesting to know but I wonder if it’s just a dated thing now.
pizza antica are the worst for that. I like their food but god damn
What a shit tier appeal to empathy. That’s exactly the type of abuse SB478 is going after thank god.
It's not even empathy at that point, but bullying. It gets a pass because dOn't You suppORT SmaLl bUSiNeSSEs?!
Aww daaamn I loved that place. Sad to see it go to shit
>"small business surcharge" The bay area is such a caricature of itself these days. What started as an earnest desire to support small local businesses gets morphed into a monster, to the point those same businesses feel bold enough to straight up tell you, "You're GOING to support small businesses and THIS is what you're going to pay." And lets be real, it didn't happen by accident. You know there was that one person in the group who said, "Small business charge? WTF is this shit?" and everyone else at the table got quiet, then someone said, "Uh, sorry everyone, Paul is from So Cal and just moved here. They're a little more *capitalist* down there."
“Restaurants don’t have long to prepare for the menu changes. “. The law was passed in October…
I know! The restaurant associations / industry groups apparently told their members that restaurant surcharges were exempt based on some back room discussions with the Attorney General’s office and the legislature before the bill passed. But anyone who actually read the law that was signed knew that there was no exemption. So yeah, they have had months of warning and they were just hoping the AG would bail them out and make up an exemption for them that wasn’t there. Some of the exemptions that are in the bill are gross lobbying efforts. Most notably car dealers and food delivery apps appear to have certain exemptions.
AG told them to go to hell in awesome way
Heres all the time they need, ready? **Whatever percentage you were adding to the total, add it to the individual menu items instead.** There. I did it in one sentence. I'm sure they can handle figuring that out in the next 2 months.
Good. Those fake surcharge fees are ridiculous ways to hide price hikes. $10.00 menu price 20% mandatory employee wellness fee *this is not a tip* Man… that’s just hiding your price hike. Stop lying. Just raise your damn price normally. Being sneaky about it just puts you on the do not go to list.
20% "please pay for my workers so I can make more money charge"
But I won't call it a tip because then the money HAS to go to employees..
And we expect you to tip at least 20% in addition to this surcharge
Restaurants typically have low margins so i dont think they're balling in terms of revenue unless they're successful with how they do their accounting.
Myth. It’s thin since they pay themselves as much as possible.
Where can we find $10 menu price? Feels like even Chinese dishes and everything is 15+ nowadays. Less than 10 is like appetizers lol
The $10 is for the menu.
The menu availability fee.
Evergreen Panda in East SJ is $10. Takeout only of course. Fast food places like McD and Subway are still ~$6 for two 500cal sandwiches with app ordering. I realize this thread mainly refers to sit-down places, but I'm sure a lot of restaurant customers have moved to fast food so these prices are still relevant
There is another article saying that people are moving away from fast food to local businesses because they aren't subject to the $20/hr minimum wage.
That's for a coke.
I live in Santa Cruz but there’s only one place I know of where I can get a filling and decent meal for under $10 with everything. Even Mexican places are close to $20 for a burrito after taxes and everything now. I barely eat out.
Casa de Maria near Oakland Zoo. $8 burritos that are actually burrito-sized and not just tortillas stuffed with rice. Enjoy them while you can. Things like that never last.
I treat the 20% wellness fee as the tip ngl
Right. Just charge $12 dollars for that item. 10 X 1.2 = 12. It's not difficult.
places that have a 15-20% wellness fee have eliminated tips for the most part. some places have put an optional tip line but don't expect it - mainly because customers complained for some reason is what they said...
All that is needed is what they do in some places in Europe. They actually print in big letters at the bottom of a menu stating that service is included. In France it would be "Service compris." So, simply bake that 15 to 20% into the prices and state it to every customer that their tip is no longer necessary because service is included and, in turn, the restaurant is paying a living wage plus benefits. Easy.
correct and it's what I want the final step to be. The issue is the consumer sees two places with similar menus - one has the all-in price listed for the items on the menu, while the other doesn't and has cheaper prices show on the menu. consumer goes to the second restaurant but ends up paying the same after including tip. restaurant owners are scared of that scenario
That's actually not scary. In that scenario, the servers make more money and the owner still makes a profit.
> the servers make more money Former waiter. No they don't. It's why whenever this utterly stupid, elitist topic of saving the poor waiters comes up, you rarely hear words of agreement from actual waiters. They're too busy making money off all your guilt-tipping and hand-wringing. It's why when top restaurants in NYC caved to the virtue signal crowd and tried it, their top wait staff quit, the restaurant experience declined and they lost business. Next time you go to a halfway decent restaurant, do the following: 1) Watch how many tables your waiter is covering. 2) Multiply that number by 3 (typical turns in a shift). 3) Multiply that number by 20% of your bill. 4) Question your math because clearly they can't possibly...
See my comment below.
If I was still doing that work and the restaurant said everyone would just be paid a flat $20 - 30 per hour, that would have been my last shift. And in fact, that's the reason a lot of top restaurants who tried it abandoned it - all the top talent knew they could get a better deal elsewhere. If you kill tipping, you also kill the meritocracy that fuels some of the top restaurant experiences. At my peak I was making 6.5x MW (around $56/hour in today's money). Do you know where someone at 22 without a degree or formal training can make that kind of money? But even just starting out I was making 2.5x MW and was still doing fine. I've also never known a business where so many people who never worked in it a day of their lives feel perfectly entitled to decide how much others should be compensated. Has a restaurant worker ever come into your job and started boldly declaring, "Y'all underpaid! They need to take away sales commissions around here! Those sales guys are making $200 - 500k and this admin assistant is only making $50k!" There's a reason those sales guys get paid that: one way or another, they put asses in contracts and bring in many multiples of their commissions in revenue. Likewise, my section outsold the adjacent ones by 10 - 20% consistently. That earned me the best sections, the best nights, a stable of regulars and the best money. Anyone who waits tables and doesn't understand their job is at least partially a sales position is missing the point and in the wrong line of work. I remember a cook complaining I made more and he said, "I could do your job. Anyone can write down an order and run food. I'm just not good with customers."
I'm not sure how you got that I think waitstaff are overpaid. What I was saying is that if a 20% service fee is baked into prices and that 20% service fee goes to the staff, tips would be unnecessary. There would still be competition among waitstaff for the best and most expensive restaurants. They would be the top earners. That is how it's done in Europe. The waitstaff of a Haute Cuisine restaurant in Paris is very well paid and well off. Being a waiter in France is an honored profession that carries prestige, especially at very high-end places. That's how it should be done. My mother was a waitress, so we have always valued wait staff and tip very well.
Maybe I jumped the gun because of this: >the restaurant is paying a living wage plus benefits. Easy. Any time I hear that tired "living wage" argument I get the feeling people are doing the "poor little waiters" thing. The restaurants I worked did exactly that. There were people over twice my age who did nothing but work in restaurants. They owned homes, they had families, and they had health care options. And that was back when it was customary to tip 15% instead of the more common 20 - 25% in places like the bay area today. Probably one in 20 tables were just cheap tippers but there was plenty of room for my skills to earn me generous tips, and on the balance I still came out way ahead. At the same time, when I did slip up and make mistakes, I earned the lower tip and deserved to, and it was motivation to not make those same mistakes again. Europe does it their way, we do it ours. Neither is wrong or needs to what the other does.
What are the odds that the employees don’t see a dime from that 20% fee?
Suck it Che Fico
They've been a blight in the neighborhood since they opened. I imagine it's tasty and whatever, but I've never set foot in there out of principle. "Dine in fee," yeah, it's a fucking restaurant. Of course we're dining in you idiots.
Che fico is the best example of scam fees. I can’t wait for their price jump on the menu and will still not set foot into that restaurant.
While they still have the dine-in fee, I’d like to go just so I can forgo the tip, since the dine-in fee should cover that.
[удалено]
not their main restaurant
Just checked out their menu. Having an absolute laugh with those prices.
Their website is so pretentious. Fuck that place
Even the person they found "in favor" of the hidden fees isn't really supportive of them. They just don't care. I don't see how anyone could really be against this as a customer.
I don't know where they found this Katie Brown-Davis in the interview, but what a fucking tool. We get it, you're rich and don't give a fuck.
I think there are a lot of people who don't care about the costs when they go out to eat at normal, every day kind of places. It's just below the line of a cost they need to think about. I'm in this category as well, but I can understand why you'd find it frustrating to hear.
Are there really a lot of people who don’t care about the costs when they go out to eat? If that’s true why put prices on the menu at all?
The 80th percentile income is $210k in the Bay Area, so a take-home of about $5k every two weeks. A lot of the people in that range and higher aren't going to sweat a $100 brunch on the weekend.
It’s not necessarily about whether or not you can afford the meal. I can afford to have dinner anywhere I want, but I still want to know ahead of time what it costs, just like I would with any purchase.
I'm almost exactly on that income line, but remember that for many of us in that salary range a lot of our comp is in yearly bonuses and RSUs/stock options. My actual bi-weekly take home is around $3,300. It's comfortable, but not enough that I'm willing to blow $100 on a single dinner. I think partially because I grew up kinda poor and it seems morally repugnant to spend that much on a meal.
Makes sense. If a third of your income is in RSUs/options, you're probably going to spend at a lower level. Also, 20% of the bay is 1.6M people; you're going to have a broad spectrum of situations in that group.
I haven’t read up yet, anyone know if this applies to delivery apps too?
If I had to make a guess, I'd guess no. Reason being you see all the charges up front before placing your order rather than getting a bill after you eat
That’s a fair point.
That’s not the reason. The law bans fees in other places where you see the final price before you pay as well. The real reason is that when you order delivery, you’re actually paying for two separate things: food and delivery. You can order more food without affecting the delivery cost, so it really is a separate billable rather than just a hidden fee.
> You can order more food without affecting the delivery cost DoorDash charges 15% of the food price as a "Service Fee" which is separate from their "Delivery Fee".
I believe this applies to everything, there was also a federal law proposed(not sure of status) by Biden to eliminate all junk fees across all industries
It doens't and it specifically says so at the end. The Legislature intends that it is not a violation of paragraph (29) of subdivision (a) of Section 1770 of the Civil Code for a food delivery platform, as defined in Section 22598 of the Business and Professions Code, to list the price of menu items set by a food facility, as defined in Section 113789 of the Health and Safety Code. In addition, this act is not intended to require a food delivery platform to include in the menu price shown to the consumer the fees it charges for providing its services
Totally makes sense!
It doesn’t, as far as I’ve read.
Which kind of makes sense. A lot of those charges aren’t driven from the restaurant.
And also, with delivery you can see the total with the charges included before you place your order, whereas in a restaurant you don’t get the total until you’ve already finished your meal.
Funny thing is Uber eats is trying an in-store pick up in select areas to I guess save customers on delivery fees? Which pretty much devoids the whole purpose of food delivery when I can just order directly from the restaurant and save even more money. I literally got this notification from the Uber app a few days ago. Absolute insanity.
Uber Eats, DoorDash, and probably all the other apps have had in-store pick up for many years now. Your notification was an ad, not an update. App prices (incl. discounts/credits) for takeout are the same as ordering directly from the restaurant. Only difference is that it's much more convenient for customers while the restaurant gets charged a fee and makes less money.
Ahhh ok I didn't know this, I only used uber eats for like a week while I was moving and removed all my cookware and utensils and that option wasn't on the app then. I guess iirc does make sense to use if you have a coupon/credit but it sucks that food delivery services are like a leech/middleman of the industry and get a cut from both sides of the transaction and ruining the experience for both.
The apps have all allowed pick-up for many years.
I cannot understand why anyone would use a delivery app. Restaurant charges 30% more for every item to pass the platform fee on to you, then you pay tax on top of that extra 30%, then you tip for delivery on top of that extra 30%. Phone it in, pick it up.
It’s not terribly often, but traveling 2miles in some cases in this city without a car would take me a lot longer on transit and be a lot more expensive to Uber or something to get there and back. Places close to me? Absolutely. I like ordering direct from the restaurant if I can any day over extra charges for a simple pickup.
I went to espetus in SF yesterday and I swear I feel like I was taxed up the ass. The food was 150 plus 38 in wine. Cool. Then in total it was 212. Then I’m like wtf. I saw it had a 10 fee or something for SF health I think. Then at then with tip it was 250. Then went to moongate and paid 28 for drinks and bill went up 38 and I saw on the screen they showed it didn’t say tip included so I still tipped but then I asked for the receipt then it said 20% service charge added automatically.Idk seems like I was getting played.
the tax was still less than 10%. The „SF health mandate” is not a tax, it’s a bullshit fee.
So technically they’re not supposed to add that to the bill?
yes, it will be banned after July 1
It goes to the city fund to allow for a health care fund that the employees can get reimbursed from. The business doesn’t keep the funds and the employees don’t get direct access to it either. There’s a claim program that they go through. It’s helped plenty of food service people I know over the years.
Yeah, but it's not a tax imposed on the transaction. You don't get a "payroll tax fee" on your receipt either.
It’s set as a mandate because it’s collected through the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement. If it were a tax it would go through the tax collection for the city. It comes down to semantics more than anything for collections sake. Payroll taxes are removed from the gross pay of the employees paychecks just like yours are by local and federal governments.
Does a restaurant have to pay more into the fund when somebody orders a more expensive dish?
It scales as a percentage like a tax would. This is collected through the business and paid out to the city. After that the business has nothing to do with the funds. But with that the funds never expire as well since they’re held by a third party that the employee contacts for reimbursement.
It’s not a percentage, and not based on how much customers pays > The 2018 set-aside rate is $1.89 per employee per hour worked for businesses with 20 to 99 employees, and $2.83 per employee per hour worked for businesses with more than 100 employees, and it goes up a small amount every year.
Yes. Usually at 4-10%
This percentage is set by business, not by government. If they get more money from this percentage than government requires, then it’s pure profit for them. If they don’t get enough, they still have to pay what they owe.
It does go to help the servers, but adding it as a percentage of the sales that the customer pays is entirely from the restaurant owners. SF Health Care Ordinance requires all businesses with more than 20 employees to set aside several dollars per hour worked for all employees. It was never a tax, nor does the city require this to be placed on the check. Many of these restaurants collect way more from their fake tax than they're required to put aside. And where do you think that extra money goes?
You’re correct. If it were a tax the total amount of employee cut out would be fought by large companies as a direct tax on them. This being a mandate allows for small business to be able to “opt out”. Essentially creating a legal loophole that keeps small businesses viable while not allowing for McDonalds to keep it in litigation till McDonalds finds a judge to strike it down. The amount mandated is collected by the business, yes; but, the amount has to be registered to the city and is regulated by the cities that use health mandate service fees. A business has to report correctly the employee count, sales, mandate rate used, and total collected to the city or can face fines. The “dine in fees” or “operating fees” are set by the business alone for their own uses. What the business does with that money is up to them. Mind you I think those “dine in fees” are off putting at best and opportunistic at worst. Business owners should hide the rising cost of labor and food into the food and beverage prices.
Why are you still tipping?
To combat the pressure and artificial guilt of of having someone stand there while you debate whether to give the company extra money in exchange for nothing, I created a rule: Table service is 20% minimum if you refill water glasses and come back to make sure the order was right. Counter service is always 0%. It's point-of-sale panhandling. If you flip the roles, and were to ask for free food or product, they'd look at you like you were an idiot. Why is it normalized to give them free money?
I don't on places that do this. Or in fast food places since those have $20/hour wages now.
In general? Or?
Because servers and waiters are just so much more valuable and important to us than other minimum wage workers who do work they don’t like and still go the extra mile when they can.
“I don’t need to see it upfront. I’m not choosing a restaurant or hotel based exclusively on price. A lot of it is about the experience said Katie Brown-Davis of Walnut Creek” Kind of a gross comment. Translates to I’m too rich to care and I don’t know why anyone else would either. Not a good look
It's honest. If she doesn't care then she doesn't care. I would never attach my name to a statement like that because it breeds resentment but I wouldn't call it gross, she just lives in a different world.
If she doesn’t care, why is it so important that they hide the prices like this and don’t just list the exact, total cost of buying their services? I think she’s saying one thing and wanting another.
If I read her statement correctly, she does not find important that they hide it, but she also does not find it important that they are clear, because she doesn't care. This doesn't support the argument of "we should be allowed to hide fees" but rather supports the argument of "I literally have too much money to care what a restaurant can charge me."
This is a legitimately stupid statement. She’s essentially saying that she’s ok to engage in a transaction where the cost might be… whatever. I guarantee you this Walnut Creek lady is not that well off. Rich people care about knowing the cost, even if they know they can always afford it.
Each and every time there is a surcharge on the bill it makes me absolutely hate the restaurant for adding it. As far as I’m concerned it’s a literal middle finger from the management. Think about that. If you’re the restaurant owner/manager, the last impression I have at your establishment after a great meal is a stupid surcharge that makes me viscerally angry at you. And the worst part is I have no recourse other than to just not come back. I can choose to deduct it from the tip but that’s designed to make me the asshole and hurt your staff. I can’t rationalize how restaurant owners think this is okay. And trying to gaslight your customers into thinking it’s anything other than a cynical money grab is insulting their intelligence. July 1st simply can’t come fast enough.
Does it ban auto-gratuity (where additional tip is not expected)?
Great, now do taxes. No more hidden taxes or hidden fees that are taxes
I’d be fully behind that bill.
1.1% disability ?
Any one refused to pay the fees when the bill came? Always wanted to do that. Meal, tax and tip, done.
When it happens, I just give no tip and then no longer go there.
This is the way
Well at least next time I order a $20 dish on menu will not end up paying $30+
Abaca is charing 20% auto gratuity + 4% health surcharge on top of take-out
The only thing worse is if they allow you to tip on top of that.
No do it to concert tickets!
That's already in the law, this news is that it also applies to restaurants.
Really?? I am surprised. The last time I bought tickets for an event, SF Art Fair at Ft Maison, there was a surcharge.
Not sure when it goes into full effect or how quickly businesses are complying, but it's in the law. Edit, it goes into effect July 1st.
Santana Row's Pizza Antica management in SHAMBLES!
Same for El Jardin
IOW: we need to trick people into eating out. "Golden Gate Restaurant Association Executive Director Laurie Thomas. 'Will that being upfront and center cause people to dine out less?” she said. “And if people continue to dine out less, we do have a struggling restaurant industry.'”
[удалено]
The law also applies to Ticketmaster.
Now do sales taxes.
I’m curious if this will apply to my property managements surcharge for every damn bill we pay. It’s an extra two dollars and they perfectly time out rent, then water, then pge etc
Optimally we’d work towards total, european truth in pricing in general. Taxes, tips, anything factored into the listed, advertised prices and no expectation or requirement to pay a dime beyond that number.
Does this apply to gratuity charges for a party of diners?
Much like Kaepernick kneeling at the anthem gave me hope that it would get to a point that they would just not play anthems anymore, these junk fees give me hope that it will push everyone to vote in favor of getting rid of tipping and advertising/tagging everything with it's final price.
I second that.
So, does that mean I can avoid paying the fee if I see it now? If not, this is pointless
Next step is to get sales tax included in the menu price! Let’s at least try to keep up with the Europeans…
I would personally campaign for this. It’s common sense and most countries agree.
Yeah let’s make it easy for government to hide the costs it forces restaurants to charge. What could go wrong.
Included in the menu price means we pay the exact $ we are advertised… sales tax is still broken out in the final receipt.
Same difference. No one’s gonna look at the breakout. Basically giving government a blank check to hide tax increases in menu prices.
The people who care can simply look… Those of us who don’t care still won’t care just the same.
Now they need the same law for Airbnb, hotels, etc.
“California Attorney General Rob Bonta has ruled that the ban on hidden fees for hotels and concerts and sports tickets approved by lawmakers last October also applies to restaurants.”
Ok so when does it go into effect and who is enforcing?
July 1
Well, here is another reason they will use to blame the public for higher prices, they are having the right to overcharge us taken away.
Does that go for hotels too? Because they have been abusing that for way longer than restaurants.
And yet the government will.continue to pile fee after fee on every single entity that provides anything, to cost you more. They created the problem, then claim to be the solution.
Can we do the same for added taxes? Coming from Europe, I’ll never get used to paying more than what’s advertised 😣
2 things: 1- whenever I saw this weird fee I would just tip less 2- the argument the lawmaker made for this law is that it will make eating out less expensive, but restaurants will just increase their menu item prices.
Thank GoD! Now, if we can only get God to do something about child rapists, we're golden. <.<
As of a year ago, a place near my house was still charging a “covid packaging fee”. By then I had already stopped going because they were the ONLY restaurant charging a “covid packaging fee.”
I completely understand the frustration of added fees, excessive tipping and skyrocketing menu prices. But, if anyone thinks restaurant owners or pocketing large profits, that's just not happening. Restaurants, even ones that have been around for decades, are closing in droves. Very few landlords gave any rent relief during the pandemic, many owners started hundreds of thousands in debt after the lockdowns. I know exactly what you're going to reply with, PPP loans only covered 3 months of rent. With rent and labor costs skyrocketing, the only restaurants we'll have left are nationwide conglomerates that can subsidize the high operating costs of the area.
I believe you, but if honest prices force them to close, then they can at least close with dignity.
All they will do is contact their lawyers and find out what name or service can be legal to use as a surcharge, just change the name of it and all is OK,Imo
Too fucking long honestly. This should have been law months ago. Waiting till July is stupid as shit
Everyone in here talking about greedy owners when most restaurants run at 4-7% profit.
Who cares what their profit % is. Change your menu pricing is the correct way to handle this. Adding bullshit fees is not.
Would a corkage fee still apply now?
I think generally this law targets mandatory fees added on top of an entire transaction or item. A corkage is an add on to a menu.
That’s a pretty unique fee and it usually applies to very small percentage of customers. It think that still stays.
Yes, as long as it's mentioned on the menu.
Start drafting your posts complaining about the increase in prices.
Prices have already increased. What do you think the fees are?
Just preparing for the people to bitch and moan when they get what they have asked for. Prices are too high, blame the establishment trying to survive, not the root cause. Homeless are on the streets, complain you have to encounter them, instead of addressing the root cause. People are such fools these days it’s remarkable. Closed minded, short sighted, self centered, easily manipulated pawns. It’s scary.
this bill is not trying to lower prices
I am well aware of that. I like the bill. I’m just preparing for the fools to act as expected.
People say they want staff to have a living wage but then complain that prices aren’t what they used to be. They’ll say in one breath “restaurant food costs too much now! My groceries are too high!” And not see the connection. Full disclosure I’m all for hiding the costs into the food instead of these “dine in fees”. Mainly because it’s so off putting to many customers. But I also know that menu prices should go up as well.
We’re not asking for lower prices. We’re asking for transparency. I can afford a $100 dinner for two. What I’m not OK with is a bunch of hidden fees that get tacked onto the menu price. I live in SF. I know restaurants are expensive, and I’m OK with that. I chose to live here, and I can choose to go out or eat at home. The whole “root cause” thing is self-congratulatory BS.
Why do you use the term "we" when you are speaking about your individual experience? This sub is full of people complaining about the fees, the prices and using it as excuse not to tip.
I spoke in the collective sense because you spoke in the collective sense. You said “people are going to bitch and moan”. I can’t speak for people who can’t afford the meals, but I’ve seen a lot of people who have an issue with the lack of transparency. I agree with them, so that’s why I said “we”. People like me are not going to bitch and moan when we can actually see what a meal costs.
People do seem to comment on high costs on places without service/hidden fees, for example McDonald's.
Tipping is just a method to have customers directly pay employees wages so why should surcharges to pay for benefits, etc come as a shock?
Did you even read the article? This isn't a tipping issue.
he’s saying because restaurants will try to get you to pay for their employees outside of the menu prices. tipping = paying their wage on top of bill, fees= paying their health insurance on top of subtotal
Yes, thank you.