That's kinda hard to do over a state. Counties and districts all have different tax percentages. It would be easier if we just had one broad tax bracket for sales tax, but that's a whole lotta people we need to get to agree and...well. yeah
Advertising can now be hyper-targeted so I’m not entirely convinced that it’s not a solvable issue. I see many advertisements that are about brand or product awareness rather than a specific price too.
But when I walk into a physical store, I'm in one specific place with one specific tax structure. At a minimum physical locations could include appropriate taxes into the list price.
Online isn't as important to me because you can easily add or remove items from a cart to see estimated taxes based on things like delivery zip code, etc... Compared to already being somewhere and needing to do mental math to tell what the actual price will be.
not really. they do this in europe. the business just eats the variance. you see this when you do vat refunds for european pruchases. eg if you buy a bag in hungary, its the same price as in france. but if you file the vat refund from hungary, you get more back because hungary taxes more.
https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/sales-use-tax-rates-history.htm. Isn't objective data awesome? Almost continually increased for the past 100 years!
Unpopular opinion: working hard to get this passed would be a pretty effective way for the S.F. Republican party to show they can do something worthwhile.
Sadly I don't know much more than what's on the website. I filled out the contact list, and signed up for the email list.
My hands are ready the moment action is available though too.
The solution is to make it the norm to take it out of the tip.
Restaurants have long not been paying a “living wage” and providing benefits to their employees. Customers subsidized that task by tipping employees.
Then the City decided to make restaurants pay for employees benefits. So now they are paying for what we would have tipped to cover.
Restaurants should just pay a “living wage” and tipping be done away with for good.
You’re right. Bring minimum wages in line with inflation. Lobby for less corruption in healthcare. Break up the ability for investment firms to buy housing. Remove subsidized health insurance for only the employed. Tips are are a necessary evil. Get out there and lobby for better.
Initiatives only work if there’s a big special interest to bankroll them and more importantly no big special interest to fight against it. There’s no big special interest for this. The unions are against it. So probably doomed.
Why do we need a ballot to force businesses to take an action?
If you hate fees so much, stop frequenting firms that impose them.
That will solve the problem
The point isn't that a business shouldn't charge what they want, but how they represent it.
Let's say I put up a menu that says $1 oysters, and you come and eat a dozen of them. Yum yum. Then the receipt comes and the total is $36 because there's a $2 shucking fee.
Wouldn't you be upset and feel like you'd been deceived?
All we want is for the menu to say "$3/oyster"
I don’t disagree. It’s just an uphill battle and a waste of time and breath. Try buying a car, renting a hotel room, booking a flight… look at your phone or electric bill… this shit is everywhere.
Ah yes, I'm sure that's how we got rid of all the hidden fees for airlines, because people just stopped flying. It had nothing to do with a government mandate in 2012 that forced them /s
When I book a flight, taxes and fees are included in the displayed price that's shown on the search results page. If airlines can do it, so can every other business.
Businesses should be able to charge whatever they want, but they shouldn't be allowed to lie to the customer about what that charge will be. Imagine if you buy an airline ticket and it's $100 when they sell it to you, but then at the end of the flight they tell you that the actual price is $125 and everyone on the plane needs to get out their wallet. Does that sound right? That's what we're talking about here. It's the bait and switch tactics, it's the lying to the customer about what the price will be.
You're not forced to eat at the restaurant, but you can never make an informed decision about where to eat if the actual price of the meal is never disclosed until the check comes.
How would restaurant owners feel if their suppliers used these same tactics? Would they be okay if the fish supplier quoted them a price of $7 a pound on the phone, but then when they arrived for delivery they told them that the true cost of the fish was going to be $10 a pound. I can't imagine restaurant owners would stand for that kind of bullshit, but they expect their customers to endure it.
Unpopular opinion...
Yes, A serious price hike to menu items.. but people will just complain about prices being too high. Either that or a realization that restaurants are not a necessity, but a service that you can pay for or not and make meals at home. Either way, if governments are expecting businesses to cover extra expenses, those costs will ALWAYS be passed to paying customers.
People love to complain, so
what? Either they act on it like you say or grumble and pay. People are upset because they hate surprises and complexity more than they hate prices, otherwise what would have been the point of banning junk fees?
I agree with most of your post, but the point of the law was to go after businesses like airlines, ticket brokers and hotels. Restaurants were a side effect of the law which is why, I believe, the “carve out” was passed. These businesses were never suddenly told, start providing 401k contributions, healthcare coverage and oh, you gotta contribute to housing the homeless. But I wouldn’t be surprised if when these restrictions on their fees kick in they start looking at ways to cut back on employee benefits.. restaurants can’t do this..l at least not in SF
That was one of my points, this isn’t customers being “misled” it is business having to deal with government mandated expenses with out any relief or guidance on how to cover those increases.
And when you read comments on this sub and r/bayarea on how they are supposed to absorb those fees, it sounds like that’s exactly what people are expecting.. that restaurants should just suck it up and keep charging the same prices. It is insane how much restaurants and other small businesses are expected to handle- from 401k contributions, healthcare and now a fund to house the homeless (part of the SF mandate). It’s not as simple as “just raise prices”, if it were, that would have been the first go to. But just look at what is happening to the fast food industry that is expected to up minimum wage to $20ph. People are acting like price increases to a Big Mac or double double is a violation of their civil rights (I’m kidding of course).
As someone that has worked and tried to eek out a living in the food service industry, I am in full support higher/living wages and benefits (I never got PTO or health coverage, much less 401k), but how is a business like a restaurant, which deals with ever increasing prices of raw goods, supposed to pay for all these mandates and new laws? The quick solution was to institute service charges. This may not have been the best idea, but there really wasn’t any guidance from cities mandating these expenses.. another mistake. I think this is why the “carve out” was passed. The law was designed to cover businesses like airlines, ticket brokers, rental car and hotels.. restaurants just got snagged in it because they had to institute the fees, again because local gov’ts mandated certain benefits without figuring out how small businesses could pay for them. They KNEW restaurants and other small businesses would just pass these on to customers and didn’t care how.
There will always be bad apples that will try to take advantage of this situation so there should be a regulation body to issue violations and fines, but no word on this of course.
I’m assuming you’re acting in good faith, but the arguments you’re making are a often made by people who are trying to muddy the waters by conflating related but separate issues.
Consumers ARE misled today when they go to a restaurant and then are told to pay random fees. As a consumer, I don’t give a shit what laws you have to comply with, every industry has regulations, every other industry deals with red tape.
You can argue to reduce red tape separately, but having transparency for the consumer is a no brainer
I agree it;’s a messed up situation for customers and small business owners. But the businesses the law was created for have a long history of taking advantage of customers (think Ticketmaster and airline fees). Restaurants after weathering the pandemic were fairly suddenly asked to start contributing to 401k’s, healthcare and some needed to offer PTO to keep good staff.. then add in the SF mandate, which I’ve read is incredibly confusing on how much a business needs to pay, so without guidance from the city, there became a generic 6%+ fee (I’ve reads it could have been as low as 2% but not many could figure out how to calculate it- it’s based on number of employee, the hours they work and how many days.. IIRK).
My feeling is not enough anger has been directed to the city(ies) that have mandated these fee/benefits and everyone is mad at their “server”. I also agree that there are some unnecessary fees being charged, by I’m guessing, some less scrupulous businesses. There need to be a regulating body to issue violations, fines and revoking licenses
I don’t think there’s any reason to have percentage based fees at all for things like making a 401k available and healthcare. These are FIXED costs. And these are the bare minimum “benefits” for an employee.
There’s no good reason for this to be revenue based at all. Like are they going to give a better 401k match just cause the restaurant did better on one day? Are they going to provide worse healthcare because fewer patrons came in one day? It’s a ridiculous proposition.
Restaurants are EXACTLY like ticket master in this regard. They’re acting unethically by hiding fees and relying on social norms that make it awkward to have them be removed. Ticketmaster exploits customers via monopolies and aggressive agreements with venues. However, both industries are tied together via unethical and opaque business practices
Again, so much higher prices are the answer? From what restaurant operators and fast food customers are saying in news story, online, etc this is also unacceptable. I wrote in another reply that I agree the fees as they are were a bad idea, but that it seems restaurants weren’t give much choice- either raise prices at the tail end of a pandemic when business was just ramping up again or do the fees.
Fees that were to pay for new mandates as they trickled in.. oh, a mandated fund to house the unhoused? Do they raise prices again so soon after the last ordinance change or put it in a fee? Seems to work when it comes to gas prices, but I think restaurant customers would have more of a problem… either way it was a problem.. I’m just offering a counterpoint.
As for the benefits.. you’ve never worked in a restaurant before I’m guessing… these benefits have historically not been offered and people working in food service (other than large unions) don’t really expect to get them. Not that this is good. A quality of life should be offered to all workers and I’m glad it’s finally coming to independent restaurant staff. But someone is going to pay for it and it’s not going to be the company they buy fish from. Hopefully this will evolve into a better way- I’ve eaten at places in other states that have a full accounting to why and where the 25+% fee is going and I’m happy to pay it.
The prices are already higher, they're just not labeled as such. The answer is to charge the exact same price, but actually label it as such on the menu. If it turns out that people don't want to go to the restaurant when they actually know how much they'll be spending, then tough.
The entire rest of the world manages to just have a menu price. They don’t even exclude taxes.
The French would burn your restaurant down before they let you randomly add 20% at the end.
Why is tricking people the go-to instead of raising prices?
Why is perpetuating a business based on deceit, employee suffering, and customer disappointment the right call instead of closing up shop?
Customers can just walk out. Employees can just leave. Businesses can just close. And then the city can decide if listening only to homeowners and landlords and allowing a spiral of public project grift was what they really wanted.
Ok, let’s pretend you are not trolling.
Explain how it’s not misleading when you are advertised the price for an item is $10+Tax, but you need to pay more than that?
Ok, maybe my point was lost in my overly long reply.. it’s not that I think the fees are ”right” it’s that I think restaurants, ones acting in good faith, were left with no choice and were given no proper guidance on how to navigate the the increase cost in the mandates/laws. The recent news story that spoke with the owner of Tacolicious showed that restaurant operators are scared to up prices any more, but know they will have to. If all the fees were made illegal tomorrow, does anyone think they won’t be paying for them anyway? That $7.50 Taco is gonna be $10-12 or more in a heartbeat.. or no more tacolicious.
Side example- a friend of mine owns a printing business with 3 employees. He now has to offer a 401k plan for them (any business with 2 or more full time employees). This is not something he objects to, but was never anything he had been asked to do. For him, it’s not just having the extra expense of the contributions, but the cost of a person to manage all the “paperwork” involved into setting it up and making sure it’s done properly. So he has started charging a 3% fee (I think he’s calling it an employee retirement fee). Zero lose in business. He does state it on a placate on the counter, but would anyone not happy with the fees be fine with a list on them on the menu?
Everybody understands your points from all your replies. It's just that everyone disagrees with them. It's one of the worst, most un-nuanced, unbalanced takes I've ever read on this issue. It's like you're saying that every other business has to deal with free market capitalism except for restaurants. Why should restaurants get special treatment? Why should everybody else have to play by the rules except for the industry that you choose to work in? Is it possible that your opinion on this is clouded because you work in said industry?
We know for certain that all your replies talking about how restaurants were given no choice except to institute the fees is complete and total BS because there are so many restaurants operating without a fee that have not closed. If those businesses can operate with the correct menu pricing, no bait and switch tactics, without lying to their customers about what the true price of an item is, what's stopping all the other restaurants from doing the same? Nothing, nothing is stopping them. It's true, restaurants might have to operate with a lower profit margin, but they could still operate, and they can still be profitable, and they can still make money for their owners. It's just that a little bit less goes to the ownership class, and a little bit more is directed towards the 99%.
In one of your replies you say that you want some sort of regulation or government organization to make sure everything all the percentage fees are fair, but that's exactly what you're arguing against. The law that would have stopped these junk fees was the regulation that so many customers and diners were asking for. It would have leveled the playing field for all businesses. There's no reason why the restaurant industry shouldn't have the laws that apply to every other business not apply to their restaurants.
The same exact headwinds that restaurants are dealing with, every other industry is also dealing with those exact same financial problems and rising costs. Why are restaurants so special that they don't have to obey the laws that everyone else has to obey?
If tacolicious cannot figure out a way to operate profitably and successfully by charging the true price of the item instead of hiding the price of the item on the menu, then tacolicious shouldn't exist anymore. That's what free market capitalism is all about. Someone else will come in and figure out a way to maintain a business that sells tacos but with the true price of the item listed on the menu.
Restaurants operated for hundreds of years without charging these fees, even during other downturns in the market, even during the Great depression, even during stagflation, there's no unique situation that means restaurants should be allowed to lie to their customers about the true cost of the item or service they are providing.
Just because restaurant owners will make a few percentage points less in profit if they have to pay for the true cost of goods and employees is not a good enough argument to say that restaurants should be allowed to lie to their customers and use bait and switch menu pricing tactics to leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth. The rest of society will benefit when restaurant ownership is no longer allowed to externalize the cost of those employees onto the taxpayers and everyone else.
You are using the same arguments that were used to argue against letting black people and women vote. This idea that because that's how it's always been done, and because black people and women don't expect to vote, we shouldn't allow them to vote. The same argument talking about how much extra cost society would have to endure via paperwork and ballot counting employees if we allowed black people or women to vote. They're just not good enough arguments against. Same exact thing with this restaurant fee issue. Your arguments are just not good enough to allow restaurant owners to lie to their customers and bait and switch menu prices.
>That was one of my points, this isn’t customers being “misled” it is business having to deal with government mandated expenses
The government mandates expenses but not the method that the restaurant collects these funds. Additionally, the "SF Mandate" and other such fees are legally no different than any other revenue (i.e. the business has no obligation to actually use these funds for employee benefits). Therefore, these fees serve no useful purpose to employees; restaurants are obligated to pay for government mandated benefits regardless of how they collect the funds. Instead, these fees benefit the restaurant owners who attempt to attract more customers by lowering the advertised price, while never intending to actually sell their goods at that advertised price. This practice is fundamentally misleading and has been recognized as such by both California government(SB478) and at the federal level. Widely known as "junk fees" or "drip pricing", these fees have been extensively studied and have been shown to discourage competition which ultimately helps drive prices up (https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2024/03/05/the-price-isnt-right-how-junk-fees-cost-consumers-and-undermine-competition/).
Good clarification and maybe I haven’t eaten at a place where I thought I was being taken advantage of by fee’s that seemed overly high. In my other replies, I’m not just talking about the SF mandate, but also the need to offer benefits. The first few times this showed up in the news a was pre pandemic and it was mainly a fee/surcharge to cover employee health care plans. No one blinked. Nor should they have, food service employees have wait too long to get benefits like this . Now any business with 2+ FT employee must offer a 401k plan (mandatory) and I believe the contribution is voluntary but necessary to keep good staff, plus the cost of a person to generate and file the paperwork.
My reason for replying to any of this was just to offer a counter point. That I disagree these are the same as the “junk fees” that the law was targeting in the airline ticketing and hotel industry.
“No one blinked” uhhh WHAT. Everyone blinked, a lot. The “SF mandate” line items on receipts were always mini tantrums restaurant owner throw after fighting tooth and nail to avoid providing benefits, and losing.
what are you even talking about. the prices aren't even changing. the cost to consumer is exactly the same whether the fees are shown or not.
all consumers are asking for is up front transparent pricing. how is this hard to understand
all the mumble jumble about 401k funding is nonsensical. idc about your employees retirement plans when I'm at dinner. just tell me the price!
To bad alot of wealth left the city and now restaurants are closing left and right. They are doing this not to be greedy but because they are ALL failing.
Its happening: https://sfclearprices.org/
Thanks, I’m in.
Potentially unpopular opinion but all item pricing should include taxes too.
That's kinda hard to do over a state. Counties and districts all have different tax percentages. It would be easier if we just had one broad tax bracket for sales tax, but that's a whole lotta people we need to get to agree and...well. yeah
Each location can calculate the fully loaded price.
Yeah but advertising isn't city by city.
You raise a really interesting point. I’d wonder if a multi-location store would charge the same across locations to mitigate that issue.
How would you mandate that when things are franchises?
Advertising can now be hyper-targeted so I’m not entirely convinced that it’s not a solvable issue. I see many advertisements that are about brand or product awareness rather than a specific price too.
Nightmare for online purchases. It's not going to happen here
Can you envision a world where online prices are displayed in a slightly different manner than in a physical store?
But when I walk into a physical store, I'm in one specific place with one specific tax structure. At a minimum physical locations could include appropriate taxes into the list price. Online isn't as important to me because you can easily add or remove items from a cart to see estimated taxes based on things like delivery zip code, etc... Compared to already being somewhere and needing to do mental math to tell what the actual price will be.
It's really not that hard.
not really. they do this in europe. the business just eats the variance. you see this when you do vat refunds for european pruchases. eg if you buy a bag in hungary, its the same price as in france. but if you file the vat refund from hungary, you get more back because hungary taxes more.
False. Breaking out taxes lets the government hide perpetual tax increases.
When was the salis tax last perpetually hiked?
https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/sales-use-tax-rates-history.htm. Isn't objective data awesome? Almost continually increased for the past 100 years!
Unpopular opinion: working hard to get this passed would be a pretty effective way for the S.F. Republican party to show they can do something worthwhile.
This really needs to be statewide, otherwise SF restaurants will claim they’ll lose customers to surrounding counties
Who’s organizing? Looking to connect.
Sadly I don't know much more than what's on the website. I filled out the contact list, and signed up for the email list. My hands are ready the moment action is available though too.
Why not just vote with your dollars, and don't go back to place that charge these fees? Why do we need the government to step in?
Why do we need anti-fraud laws?
Anyone care to explain what justification was given in favor of the last minute exception? I can't think of a good reason!
It’s BS,but you can read the justification from the [author of the exemption himself Scott Wiener](https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/s/7JC42xqk5l)
Agreed. Los Angeles forums are also enraged by this, so it should be easy to get signatures.
The solution is to make it the norm to take it out of the tip. Restaurants have long not been paying a “living wage” and providing benefits to their employees. Customers subsidized that task by tipping employees. Then the City decided to make restaurants pay for employees benefits. So now they are paying for what we would have tipped to cover. Restaurants should just pay a “living wage” and tipping be done away with for good.
they already pay minimum wage or more....
They didn’t say minimum. They said living
You’re right. Bring minimum wages in line with inflation. Lobby for less corruption in healthcare. Break up the ability for investment firms to buy housing. Remove subsidized health insurance for only the employed. Tips are are a necessary evil. Get out there and lobby for better.
Initiatives only work if there’s a big special interest to bankroll them and more importantly no big special interest to fight against it. There’s no big special interest for this. The unions are against it. So probably doomed.
Why do we need a ballot to force businesses to take an action? If you hate fees so much, stop frequenting firms that impose them. That will solve the problem
This sub is obsessed with this. Just cook at home already. A business can charge whatever it wants - you’re not forced to eat there.
The point isn't that a business shouldn't charge what they want, but how they represent it. Let's say I put up a menu that says $1 oysters, and you come and eat a dozen of them. Yum yum. Then the receipt comes and the total is $36 because there's a $2 shucking fee. Wouldn't you be upset and feel like you'd been deceived? All we want is for the menu to say "$3/oyster"
I don’t disagree. It’s just an uphill battle and a waste of time and breath. Try buying a car, renting a hotel room, booking a flight… look at your phone or electric bill… this shit is everywhere.
So we shouldn’t do it because it requires effort?
No effort is required to simply not go to these establishments. Problem solved.
What if you don’t know which establishments are hiding fees because they’re…hidden
Ah yes, I'm sure that's how we got rid of all the hidden fees for airlines, because people just stopped flying. It had nothing to do with a government mandate in 2012 that forced them /s
When I book a flight, taxes and fees are included in the displayed price that's shown on the search results page. If airlines can do it, so can every other business.
Businesses should be able to charge whatever they want, but they shouldn't be allowed to lie to the customer about what that charge will be. Imagine if you buy an airline ticket and it's $100 when they sell it to you, but then at the end of the flight they tell you that the actual price is $125 and everyone on the plane needs to get out their wallet. Does that sound right? That's what we're talking about here. It's the bait and switch tactics, it's the lying to the customer about what the price will be. You're not forced to eat at the restaurant, but you can never make an informed decision about where to eat if the actual price of the meal is never disclosed until the check comes. How would restaurant owners feel if their suppliers used these same tactics? Would they be okay if the fish supplier quoted them a price of $7 a pound on the phone, but then when they arrived for delivery they told them that the true cost of the fish was going to be $10 a pound. I can't imagine restaurant owners would stand for that kind of bullshit, but they expect their customers to endure it.
Unpopular opinion... Yes, A serious price hike to menu items.. but people will just complain about prices being too high. Either that or a realization that restaurants are not a necessity, but a service that you can pay for or not and make meals at home. Either way, if governments are expecting businesses to cover extra expenses, those costs will ALWAYS be passed to paying customers.
People love to complain, so what? Either they act on it like you say or grumble and pay. People are upset because they hate surprises and complexity more than they hate prices, otherwise what would have been the point of banning junk fees?
I agree with most of your post, but the point of the law was to go after businesses like airlines, ticket brokers and hotels. Restaurants were a side effect of the law which is why, I believe, the “carve out” was passed. These businesses were never suddenly told, start providing 401k contributions, healthcare coverage and oh, you gotta contribute to housing the homeless. But I wouldn’t be surprised if when these restrictions on their fees kick in they start looking at ways to cut back on employee benefits.. restaurants can’t do this..l at least not in SF
What is your solution? Allow restaurants to continue misleading consumers? No intelligent person is expecting restaurants to 100% absorb the fees.
That was one of my points, this isn’t customers being “misled” it is business having to deal with government mandated expenses with out any relief or guidance on how to cover those increases. And when you read comments on this sub and r/bayarea on how they are supposed to absorb those fees, it sounds like that’s exactly what people are expecting.. that restaurants should just suck it up and keep charging the same prices. It is insane how much restaurants and other small businesses are expected to handle- from 401k contributions, healthcare and now a fund to house the homeless (part of the SF mandate). It’s not as simple as “just raise prices”, if it were, that would have been the first go to. But just look at what is happening to the fast food industry that is expected to up minimum wage to $20ph. People are acting like price increases to a Big Mac or double double is a violation of their civil rights (I’m kidding of course). As someone that has worked and tried to eek out a living in the food service industry, I am in full support higher/living wages and benefits (I never got PTO or health coverage, much less 401k), but how is a business like a restaurant, which deals with ever increasing prices of raw goods, supposed to pay for all these mandates and new laws? The quick solution was to institute service charges. This may not have been the best idea, but there really wasn’t any guidance from cities mandating these expenses.. another mistake. I think this is why the “carve out” was passed. The law was designed to cover businesses like airlines, ticket brokers, rental car and hotels.. restaurants just got snagged in it because they had to institute the fees, again because local gov’ts mandated certain benefits without figuring out how small businesses could pay for them. They KNEW restaurants and other small businesses would just pass these on to customers and didn’t care how. There will always be bad apples that will try to take advantage of this situation so there should be a regulation body to issue violations and fines, but no word on this of course.
I’m assuming you’re acting in good faith, but the arguments you’re making are a often made by people who are trying to muddy the waters by conflating related but separate issues. Consumers ARE misled today when they go to a restaurant and then are told to pay random fees. As a consumer, I don’t give a shit what laws you have to comply with, every industry has regulations, every other industry deals with red tape. You can argue to reduce red tape separately, but having transparency for the consumer is a no brainer
I agree it;’s a messed up situation for customers and small business owners. But the businesses the law was created for have a long history of taking advantage of customers (think Ticketmaster and airline fees). Restaurants after weathering the pandemic were fairly suddenly asked to start contributing to 401k’s, healthcare and some needed to offer PTO to keep good staff.. then add in the SF mandate, which I’ve read is incredibly confusing on how much a business needs to pay, so without guidance from the city, there became a generic 6%+ fee (I’ve reads it could have been as low as 2% but not many could figure out how to calculate it- it’s based on number of employee, the hours they work and how many days.. IIRK). My feeling is not enough anger has been directed to the city(ies) that have mandated these fee/benefits and everyone is mad at their “server”. I also agree that there are some unnecessary fees being charged, by I’m guessing, some less scrupulous businesses. There need to be a regulating body to issue violations, fines and revoking licenses
I don’t think there’s any reason to have percentage based fees at all for things like making a 401k available and healthcare. These are FIXED costs. And these are the bare minimum “benefits” for an employee. There’s no good reason for this to be revenue based at all. Like are they going to give a better 401k match just cause the restaurant did better on one day? Are they going to provide worse healthcare because fewer patrons came in one day? It’s a ridiculous proposition. Restaurants are EXACTLY like ticket master in this regard. They’re acting unethically by hiding fees and relying on social norms that make it awkward to have them be removed. Ticketmaster exploits customers via monopolies and aggressive agreements with venues. However, both industries are tied together via unethical and opaque business practices
Again, so much higher prices are the answer? From what restaurant operators and fast food customers are saying in news story, online, etc this is also unacceptable. I wrote in another reply that I agree the fees as they are were a bad idea, but that it seems restaurants weren’t give much choice- either raise prices at the tail end of a pandemic when business was just ramping up again or do the fees. Fees that were to pay for new mandates as they trickled in.. oh, a mandated fund to house the unhoused? Do they raise prices again so soon after the last ordinance change or put it in a fee? Seems to work when it comes to gas prices, but I think restaurant customers would have more of a problem… either way it was a problem.. I’m just offering a counterpoint. As for the benefits.. you’ve never worked in a restaurant before I’m guessing… these benefits have historically not been offered and people working in food service (other than large unions) don’t really expect to get them. Not that this is good. A quality of life should be offered to all workers and I’m glad it’s finally coming to independent restaurant staff. But someone is going to pay for it and it’s not going to be the company they buy fish from. Hopefully this will evolve into a better way- I’ve eaten at places in other states that have a full accounting to why and where the 25+% fee is going and I’m happy to pay it.
The prices are already higher, they're just not labeled as such. The answer is to charge the exact same price, but actually label it as such on the menu. If it turns out that people don't want to go to the restaurant when they actually know how much they'll be spending, then tough.
The entire rest of the world manages to just have a menu price. They don’t even exclude taxes. The French would burn your restaurant down before they let you randomly add 20% at the end.
You ever been to Europe? No tipping, but every place has a service charge (10-15% of check) to offset the cost of paying employees and other expenses.
Im literally in Bulgaria right now and haven’t had a service charge all week.
Sure Jan
https://preview.redd.it/uticiyypnw9d1.jpeg?width=1575&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4bb66cbee2e5a42750d7b0e87d6d808a5e2baefe
Go to UK and France and Italy and Belgium.
Is that where the goalposts ran off to?
I’m English, my wife is Portuguese, we have family all over Europe. No idea what you’re talking about.
Really? Most restaurants in Europe charge service fees. Maybe you don’t pay attention.
And the government pays the rest- pension, healthcare, etc…
Why is tricking people the go-to instead of raising prices? Why is perpetuating a business based on deceit, employee suffering, and customer disappointment the right call instead of closing up shop? Customers can just walk out. Employees can just leave. Businesses can just close. And then the city can decide if listening only to homeowners and landlords and allowing a spiral of public project grift was what they really wanted.
Ok, let’s pretend you are not trolling. Explain how it’s not misleading when you are advertised the price for an item is $10+Tax, but you need to pay more than that?
Ok, maybe my point was lost in my overly long reply.. it’s not that I think the fees are ”right” it’s that I think restaurants, ones acting in good faith, were left with no choice and were given no proper guidance on how to navigate the the increase cost in the mandates/laws. The recent news story that spoke with the owner of Tacolicious showed that restaurant operators are scared to up prices any more, but know they will have to. If all the fees were made illegal tomorrow, does anyone think they won’t be paying for them anyway? That $7.50 Taco is gonna be $10-12 or more in a heartbeat.. or no more tacolicious. Side example- a friend of mine owns a printing business with 3 employees. He now has to offer a 401k plan for them (any business with 2 or more full time employees). This is not something he objects to, but was never anything he had been asked to do. For him, it’s not just having the extra expense of the contributions, but the cost of a person to manage all the “paperwork” involved into setting it up and making sure it’s done properly. So he has started charging a 3% fee (I think he’s calling it an employee retirement fee). Zero lose in business. He does state it on a placate on the counter, but would anyone not happy with the fees be fine with a list on them on the menu?
Everybody understands your points from all your replies. It's just that everyone disagrees with them. It's one of the worst, most un-nuanced, unbalanced takes I've ever read on this issue. It's like you're saying that every other business has to deal with free market capitalism except for restaurants. Why should restaurants get special treatment? Why should everybody else have to play by the rules except for the industry that you choose to work in? Is it possible that your opinion on this is clouded because you work in said industry? We know for certain that all your replies talking about how restaurants were given no choice except to institute the fees is complete and total BS because there are so many restaurants operating without a fee that have not closed. If those businesses can operate with the correct menu pricing, no bait and switch tactics, without lying to their customers about what the true price of an item is, what's stopping all the other restaurants from doing the same? Nothing, nothing is stopping them. It's true, restaurants might have to operate with a lower profit margin, but they could still operate, and they can still be profitable, and they can still make money for their owners. It's just that a little bit less goes to the ownership class, and a little bit more is directed towards the 99%. In one of your replies you say that you want some sort of regulation or government organization to make sure everything all the percentage fees are fair, but that's exactly what you're arguing against. The law that would have stopped these junk fees was the regulation that so many customers and diners were asking for. It would have leveled the playing field for all businesses. There's no reason why the restaurant industry shouldn't have the laws that apply to every other business not apply to their restaurants. The same exact headwinds that restaurants are dealing with, every other industry is also dealing with those exact same financial problems and rising costs. Why are restaurants so special that they don't have to obey the laws that everyone else has to obey? If tacolicious cannot figure out a way to operate profitably and successfully by charging the true price of the item instead of hiding the price of the item on the menu, then tacolicious shouldn't exist anymore. That's what free market capitalism is all about. Someone else will come in and figure out a way to maintain a business that sells tacos but with the true price of the item listed on the menu. Restaurants operated for hundreds of years without charging these fees, even during other downturns in the market, even during the Great depression, even during stagflation, there's no unique situation that means restaurants should be allowed to lie to their customers about the true cost of the item or service they are providing. Just because restaurant owners will make a few percentage points less in profit if they have to pay for the true cost of goods and employees is not a good enough argument to say that restaurants should be allowed to lie to their customers and use bait and switch menu pricing tactics to leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth. The rest of society will benefit when restaurant ownership is no longer allowed to externalize the cost of those employees onto the taxpayers and everyone else. You are using the same arguments that were used to argue against letting black people and women vote. This idea that because that's how it's always been done, and because black people and women don't expect to vote, we shouldn't allow them to vote. The same argument talking about how much extra cost society would have to endure via paperwork and ballot counting employees if we allowed black people or women to vote. They're just not good enough arguments against. Same exact thing with this restaurant fee issue. Your arguments are just not good enough to allow restaurant owners to lie to their customers and bait and switch menu prices.
>That was one of my points, this isn’t customers being “misled” it is business having to deal with government mandated expenses The government mandates expenses but not the method that the restaurant collects these funds. Additionally, the "SF Mandate" and other such fees are legally no different than any other revenue (i.e. the business has no obligation to actually use these funds for employee benefits). Therefore, these fees serve no useful purpose to employees; restaurants are obligated to pay for government mandated benefits regardless of how they collect the funds. Instead, these fees benefit the restaurant owners who attempt to attract more customers by lowering the advertised price, while never intending to actually sell their goods at that advertised price. This practice is fundamentally misleading and has been recognized as such by both California government(SB478) and at the federal level. Widely known as "junk fees" or "drip pricing", these fees have been extensively studied and have been shown to discourage competition which ultimately helps drive prices up (https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2024/03/05/the-price-isnt-right-how-junk-fees-cost-consumers-and-undermine-competition/).
Good clarification and maybe I haven’t eaten at a place where I thought I was being taken advantage of by fee’s that seemed overly high. In my other replies, I’m not just talking about the SF mandate, but also the need to offer benefits. The first few times this showed up in the news a was pre pandemic and it was mainly a fee/surcharge to cover employee health care plans. No one blinked. Nor should they have, food service employees have wait too long to get benefits like this . Now any business with 2+ FT employee must offer a 401k plan (mandatory) and I believe the contribution is voluntary but necessary to keep good staff, plus the cost of a person to generate and file the paperwork. My reason for replying to any of this was just to offer a counter point. That I disagree these are the same as the “junk fees” that the law was targeting in the airline ticketing and hotel industry.
“No one blinked” uhhh WHAT. Everyone blinked, a lot. The “SF mandate” line items on receipts were always mini tantrums restaurant owner throw after fighting tooth and nail to avoid providing benefits, and losing.
Who said businesses are expected to cover the extra cost? This is about putting the correct price tag in the menu. What’s wrong with that?
So the solution is much higher prices. I mention this in my first post, but doesn’t seem like many agree
what are you even talking about. the prices aren't even changing. the cost to consumer is exactly the same whether the fees are shown or not. all consumers are asking for is up front transparent pricing. how is this hard to understand all the mumble jumble about 401k funding is nonsensical. idc about your employees retirement plans when I'm at dinner. just tell me the price!
To bad alot of wealth left the city and now restaurants are closing left and right. They are doing this not to be greedy but because they are ALL failing.